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

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

Post by Lowpe »

Bloodless bombardment...

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (396.13 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

And that is the turn...our raid on Babeldoab fell short...I knew I should have used other settings for it...

And it seems one division is short of Chittagong...IJA 475 AV against only 275 for Allies. Ooops.

Lots of American air power shows up at Capetown...and the first US ground forces should enter the map from Capetown today. No idea on the movement at Bundaberg yet...

I think our CD guns at Chittagong put fires on 3 IJN cargo ships...checking:

xAK Nissan Maru heavy fires
xAK Hakkai Maru heavy fires
xAP Hie Maru on fire
xAPYoshiro Maru torpedo hit, 3 destroyed squads, 6 disabled
AMC Awata Maru, on fire, 8 disabled squads




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 »

4x destroyers likely gone - nice job!
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

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

Post by Ambassador »

Tough luck for HMS Glasgow, I hope the damage is not too serious and you can repair her in time to use her before withdrawal. Good job on the DDs.

The Imperial Guards and 18th Div are good units, I’m pretty sure the 19th Div is an division which starts restricted in Manchuria or Korea and it’s certainly fresh. Hard to hold against that with less than 300 AV. An additional division would not necessarily be enough.
With the 21st Div in western Oz, one or two other divisions in eastern Oz (I don’t remember which ones you’ve spotted), and I guess the 33rd and 55th moving north in Burma, that’s a lot of dispersion. Did you manage to track the other divisions ?

And he still has to conquer the Philippines, I guess the forts are building nicely...
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

I really dislike this...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (418.53 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Ouch, this will hurt.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (193.63 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Admiral Wooten did really well, both Caledon and Colombo saw large jumps in crew experience, with Caledon hitting 81 and Colombo 73.

Interesting note that the Vals planted a general purpose bomb on Caledon in the morning and a SAP in the afternoon. Don't think I have seen that before...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (292.4 KiB) Viewed 352 times
GetAssista
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

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

Post by GetAssista »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
I really dislike this...
One of the frequent inconsistencies around buggy RR strat movement into the enemy. Sometimes it happens, nothing you can do about, just grit your teeth and carry on. You can rationalize it as RR tracks being damaged by enemies in the hex. If only the behaviour was more predictable than in the current version.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Bundaberg

The 2/4th Armoured Rgt (love the spelling[;)]) actually has 5 Stuart II tanks![:)] They made a stalling march to meet the IJA 4th Division, which suffered 44 combat disabled in yesterdays fight with the Yanks (and 4 destroyed). They have around 320AV.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (368.7 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

One of the frequent inconsistencies around buggy RR strat movement into the enemy. Sometimes it happens, nothing you can do about, just grit your teeth and carry on. You can rationalize it as RR tracks being damaged by enemies in the hex. If only the behaviour was more predictable than in the current version.


Local Guerillas. [:(]

I hope I don't get bit badly like I did in my last game with Obvert.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Geraldton

More Banshees arrive, they work very well on tanks, and not so great on infantry. Enjoying our bombing here, but we really lack good tactical bombers to really make the IJA pay.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (218.54 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

This is the 2nd wave of American Reinforcements to Australia...the first wave was howitzers and the 34th Regiment and one AA unit...

With this AA arrival we will be able to cover most of the big VP farms, and we are growing our fighter air force with more on the way.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (463.2 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

Dodging the KB...making them burn fuel at least, although in a scenario 2 game Japan does have the fuel to burn.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (248.9 KiB) Viewed 352 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 »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Geraldton

More Banshees arrive, they work very well on tanks, and not so great on infantry. Enjoying our bombing here, but we really lack good tactical bombers to really make the IJA pay.



Image
Is your sense they are still attacking and only pulling back battered units, or in general withdrawal?
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

The barrier reefs around Babeldaob might simplify this planned interception.

Not really expecting too much from three old destroyers...but the psych impact is large.[:'(]

Will issue new routing for the destroyers now, but this was yesterdays routing, the local commander decided to sit of Babeldoab instead of racing in...his decision. To get them to race in I should have set remain on station target Babeldoab along with direct and absolute.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (205.74 KiB) Viewed 352 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

I have 8 rested B17Ds in Singapore...and I am trying to develop some recon (dl) for them...but failing so far.

Oh, to have Marblehead and 3 destroyers hiding in one of those dot bases near Soerabaja.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (410.32 KiB) Viewed 352 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 »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

The barrier reefs around Babeldaob might simplify this planned interception.

Not really expecting too much from three old destroyers...but the psych impact is large.[:'(]

Will issue new routing for the destroyers now, but this was yesterdays routing, the local commander decided to sit of Babeldoab instead of racing in...his decision. To get them to race in I should have set remain on station target Babeldoab along with direct and absolute.

Image
Remain on Station can interfere with intercepts. Try Patrol instead.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Is your sense they are still attacking and only pulling back battered units, or in general withdrawal?

My guess is he will return with some baby carriers and another division or three. Perhaps land south and look to capture Kalgoorlie eventually. I bet he wants to pocket the Australian divisions here very badly...low hanging fruit in his opinion.




User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

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

Post by ny59giants »

He will go after the large and hopefully unprotected resource centers in southern Australia for strategic VPs. Looking at your screenshot, it will be Broken Hill. This is from his perspective, of course.

Banshees - maybe not so many destroyed or damaged squads/AFVs, but the disruption level should make some of those LCUs combat ineffective, at least.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

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

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: witpqs


Remain on Station can interfere with intercepts. Try Patrol instead.

You misunderstand, last turn IF I wanted to force them to arrive in Babeldoab from so very far away, I could have use remain on station, direct, absolute to get them to do that...instead of what happened in actuality, the TF commander made a decision to pull up short...

For this intercept I will plot a patrol path between two points for an intercept. +1. Haven't done it yet.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”