Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20485
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

Congratulations on all of the degrees! That's a proud dad.

Were you doing a non-specific ground attack mission when you found that unit in the middle of the desert? I imagine either that or you were quite lucky with the recon hex.

Cheers,
CB
I think sometimes you get Intel on location of a unit (without specifics of unit type) if it has been given new orders during the turn. Either that or a random report from local people comes in. I get occasional Intel on Japanese units in the Himalayas that are at least four hexes from any units of mine.
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
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Singers flak is a potent weapon, not sure why Japan is wasting their experienced pilots doing this other than they are scared that Repulse might have been getting fixed.



Image


Could you even put Repulse at Sea? I thought she was so damaged she isn't Sea worthy anyways so when he takes Singapore the ship would be scuttled anyways. FOW aside, by now your enemy should be aware of this too so I totally concur, every IJNAF crew lost over Singapore is a waste. [X(] Especially when he uses his Vals, that's something I wouldn't expect from an experienced player. A) they only carry 250kg bombs and B) they die to flak in droves. That feels the same as wrecking his ground units with repeated shock attacks for no reason.[:(] Seeing 30 Vals lost to flak in early 42, horrible for every IJ player.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

Congratulations on all of the degrees! That's a proud dad.

Were you doing a non-specific ground attack mission when you found that unit in the middle of the desert? I imagine either that or you were quite lucky with the recon hex.

Cheers,
CB

Commanders choice!
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Singers flak is a potent weapon, not sure why Japan is wasting their experienced pilots doing this other than they are scared that Repulse might have been getting fixed.



Could you even put Repulse at Sea? I thought she was so damaged she isn't Sea worthy anyways so when he takes Singapore the ship would be scuttled anyways. FOW aside, by now your enemy should be aware of this too so I totally concur, every IJNAF crew lost over Singapore is a waste. [X(] Especially when he uses his Vals, that's something I wouldn't expect from an experienced player. A) they only carry 250kg bombs and B) they die to flak in droves. That feels the same as wrecking his ground units with repeated shock attacks for no reason.[:(] Seeing 30 Vals lost to flak in early 42, horrible for every IJ player.

Top ten flak losses are Japanese...


Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (175.77 KiB) Viewed 393 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20485
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by BBfanboy »

The in-game air losses report showed a total to date loss of 132 Vals. What is that - four or five air groups worth?! [X(]
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
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The in-game air losses report showed a total to date loss of 132 Vals. What is that - four or five air groups worth?! [X(]

I have been doing pretty well in the air so far, will see what happens this turn as I start the first major bombing campaign. Coordinating sweepers and escorts and lrcap with bombers is never easy!


User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Airstrikes....

estimated enemy fighters around 100 to 125...

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (384.17 KiB) Viewed 394 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

China, Japan really committing to the off road attack...

IJA tanks are around Kweilin...



Image
Attachments
admiral.jpg
admiral.jpg (536.17 KiB) Viewed 393 times
User avatar
CaptBeefheart
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
Location: Seoul, Korea

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by CaptBeefheart »

"Commander's choice." Yes, that's the phrase I was trying to think of. Haven't fired up this game in a while. Good way to catch those pesky units trying to do sneaky things.

Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Night of March 21, 1942

A few B26s strike the enemy fighter base at Koggala...at night, flying very low (2k):

Night Air attack on Koggala , at 29,50

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-26 Marauder x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-26 Marauder: 1 damaged

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 2000 feet
Airfield Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Koggala , at 29,50

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-26 Marauder x 3

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 2000 feet
Airfield Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb

This followed up by a sweep:

Morning Air attack on Koggala , at 29,50

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 37,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 8

Allied aircraft
Hurricane I Trop x 4
Hurricane IIb Trop x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb Trop: 2 destroyed

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 25000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
Tainan Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 7000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
64th Sentai with Ki-43-Ib Oscar (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 21000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

And the the mother of all Blenheim raids during the day! My goodness[X(] The fighters are up high, and can't relocate fast enough...

How many of those ships have supplies which will burn and burn and burn, baby.


Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (237.14 KiB) Viewed 401 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Another Blenheim raid goes in, damaging and setting a light another cargo ship, then is it sweepers?



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (319.64 KiB) Viewed 401 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Over the jungle come Airacobras, but the enemy fighters are able to get quite a few to drop their bombs...but they pulled the CAP down low where it was shredded.[;)]





Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (180.67 KiB) Viewed 401 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Then over by the IJA forces around Dacca...lots of intel gathered.[;)]



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (567.78 KiB) Viewed 401 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

An expensive day in planes...however, sinking sounds were heard later in the day.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (95.56 KiB) Viewed 401 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Norfolk Island invaded, defenders shocked by the bombardments...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (449.3 KiB) Viewed 401 times
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by witpqs »

Unless the map data has modified/fixed, you can't build a port there. [:(]
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20485
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Unless the map data has modified/fixed, you can't build a port there. [:(]
I just checked on Norfolk Is. in the last official patch 1126a. The port is 0 (0), but the base screen let me click on "Expand Port" and that put the % sign after the 0. I don't have anything at the base to actually do expansion, but it looks fixed to me.
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
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Unless the map data has modified/fixed, you can't build a port there. [:(]
I just checked on Norfolk Is. in the last official patch 1126a. The port is 0 (0), but the base screen let me click on "Expand Port" and that put the % sign after the 0. I don't have anything at the base to actually do expansion, but it looks fixed to me.
Great!
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18532
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by RangerJoe »

Yes, you can build a port there. If you build an airfield, then it can be used as a stop over from Auckland to Noumea or Australia. But if the enemy is threatening, then no airfield means that float planes and flying boats can't be targeted. [:D] Add in a few supplies dropped by a FT and a few AS from an air HQ, then the place is set. [8D]
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
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”