Jump to content


Photo

AAR\'s


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 06 September 2008 - 08:12 AM

Shipmates,Has anyone been playing TSC? I would love to hear how it is going for those who have taken the plunge.

#2 Lauri Mattila

Lauri Mattila

    Private

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 10 September 2008 - 10:35 PM

Started a campaign yesterday. We have three playes, one for the USN and two for the Japanese (one in Rabaul and one in Truk). All are veteran miniature gamers, but quite new to WWII naval games. I'm the referee.August 1942The players wanted to skip Savo Island so we applied historical results.Japanese Theater Event: Oil supplies tight!Allied Theater Event: Supply mission arrives!Weather Forecast: +1Japanese Command Decisions: BR(Savo), BT, S1, S2Allied Intelligence: Allies found out that no IJN carriers sortied.Allied Command Decisions: CG1, S1+E (Savo), S2+E, ReconJapanese Intelligence: Knows that 2+ USN carriers sortied.Battle of Lunga PointWith 60% cloud cover the Japanese bombardment force was lucky to evade the allied carriers and get into Iron Bottom Sound. There they engaged the USN escort mission just off Lunga Point. The Japanese bombardment force included 4 BBs, 4 CA/CLs and 10 DDs and were faced by 5 CA/CLs and 7 DDs. The USN supply convoy was further back and included 8 DDs and 4 APDs.The ensuing battle was a fierce affair. Both sides had their destroyers out in the front. The US cruisers were positioned in a line for broadsides while the IJN BBs and cruisers were still approaching the site and were at right angles to US ships.The Japanese destroyers fired their torpedoes and kept targeting US cruisers with their searchlights while Kongo, Haruna, Nagato and Mutsu pounded them with their 16" guns. USS Buchanan was blown to bits by 2 Long Lance torpedoes hitting her almost simultanously. Kongo was soon hit by a torpedo that actually managed to explode and caused enough damage to make the ship fail her morale check. Fleet morale rules took the whole BatDiv 3 out early. HMAS Australia, USS Salt Lake City and USS Portland took hideous damage from the IJN BBs while both Portland and Salt Lake City also took hits from Long Lances. HMAS Hobart and USS Minneapolis were luckier, but when the two other cruisers in Minneapolis' division failed their morale checks, fleet morale was checked. Minneapolis also failed her check and since it was the flagship for the mission, the whole US fleet started to withdraw (which was the sensible thing to do at that point, anyway). USS Portland couldn't escape and was sunk. The others escaped into the darkness.On the whole the battle was a very confusing affair for both sides like any good night battle should be. I enforced night acquirement rules strictly resulting in severe punishment for any ship unlucky enough to be the acquired target in a formation. The Japanese had an overwhelming advantage with their 4 BBs facing a handful of US cruisers and tactically this was a sound Japanese victory. 1 US cruiser sunk, 2 cruisers disabled, 1 US destroyer sunk, 1 crippled. Combined with their losses from Savo, the US fleet is starting to look really weak. On the other hand, Kongo and 2 IJN destroyers were crippled. And Henderson was not bombarded. The real interesting thing happened after the battle. The Rabaul commander decided to cancel his supply missions! I'm not exactly sure of his reasoning, but I think he was scared of the unsuppressed Henderson Field and the unengaged US carrier group. We're playing with quite a lot of fog-of-war which might also explain his timidity (I have explained the basics of engagement resolution to players, but they don't know the tables by heart).In the end August resulted in two crushing defeats for the US on the seas (one of them being the skipped Savo), but the Index is at +9 and Kongo is out for the game. It'll be fun to see how this develops!

#3 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 10 September 2008 - 11:30 PM

Wow! Great first turn! What is interesting is that some players do not understand that the Henderson Field air attacks (Engagement H) come after the IJN Supply mission (Engagement F) is resolved, not before. The attacks come in the daylight as the convoys are leaving, after discharging their cargo. in this case, with USN carriers prowling, he may have been right to cancel one, but it is surprising to cancel both. He husbanded his resources, but let the Index go favorably to the Allies.Keep us informed how this develops, indeed!

#4 Lauri Mattila

Lauri Mattila

    Private

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 11 September 2008 - 01:07 AM

Yes, very interesting. The feeling after the game that neither side was confident and both were wondering how they were going to pull this one off. The US carrier group did attempt a strike against the IJN bombardment force and failed to locate it, so if I read the rules correctly it couldn't have attempted to intercept the supply runs. But the Rabaul commander did not realize this when cancelling his missions.

#5 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 03:55 PM

b_v wrote:

The US carrier group did attempt a strike against the IJN bombardment force and failed to locate it, so if I read the rules correctly it couldn't have attempted to intercept the supply runs. But the Rabaul commander did not realize this when cancelling his missions.

Actually the intent was that if they did not find the Bombardment group to launch a strike, they would have had an opportunity to attack the Supply mission. Perhaps that could be worded more clearly, but that is what we were trying to convey. So the IJN players were right to be fearful about an attack on one of his Supply missions, but the other could have gotten through, only suffering an attack afterwards from the unsuppressed Henderson Field. Note that Henderson is at its weakest strength, something the Kaigun also was probably unaware of. Ah, the fog of war!

#6 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 295 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:02 PM

We started TSC back in August last year without Savo having occured and made some other mistakes (such as neither I or the Ref realized that I had to use CDs to get all those reinforcements in GT2) that IMHO completely unbalanced the camapaign in the Allied favor. So after playing 3 GT we all agreed and started over; this time with a re-fight of Savo.

We have also inserted a game mechanic to make Allied control in tactical engagements less likely. We make the Allied players roll their green morale before they can do anything but follow the ship ahead of them (IMHO station keeping was one of peace time measuring aids by which Admirals judged their captain's abilities) or to shoot at visually sighted (illuminated or not illuminated) ship (be it friend or foe).

The idea is that the sun is down. We, the leadership of the USN do not train to fight at night because we don't want to fight at night. No fights at night is our collective fantasy and we subscribe our fantasy to all navys (We really want to fight the Italians).
We will hug our collective fantasy tightly to our collective chests until the Japanese beat the daylight out of us at night. At which point, just like in the fairytale the little boy will say; "Why he has nothing on at all". We will then finally realize the nakedness of our fantasy. How many ships and crews this will cost us for our collective schooling in the class room of battle will depend solely on our making or not making our morale.
I really hate this because it costs me control but it seems the only way to keep the USN from taking advantage in every fight of what it has going for it and turning the IJN into a swim team.

#7 simanton

simanton

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:14 PM

Prior to Savo, Captain Bode of USS Chicago was something of a rising star at least in part due to a reputation for smart shiphandling. Also I have heard that the prewar USN considered exercises with smokescreens to be an effective substitute for training at night. If true it was spectacularly wrong!

#8 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 295 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:31 AM

We don't even see at night in the same way we see during the day. You don't look at something directly or it will black out. You should constantly move your head in a small figure eight while looking at what ever you are watching to continualy expose different cones and rods whose visual purple hasn't been temporally expended. Its a matter of training and it has to be done at night.

#9 paul.reynolds999

paul.reynolds999

    Private

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:19 PM

Hi All,

We ran the Solomons Campaign at the Call to Arms convention in Wellington, New Zealand on 3-4 August 2013. We played less than 3km (2 miles) from the quay where the US 1st Marine Division shipped out from in July 1942. Much to our surprise we got through 4 months of the campaign and came to a clear decision over the two days. Attached is a pdf after action report.

The campaign system worked really well and produced some interesting challanges for all the players.

Regards,
Paul

Attached Files



#10 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Staff
  • 931 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:16 PM

Hi All,

We ran the Solomons Campaign at the Call to Arms convention in Wellington, New Zealand on 3-4 August 2013. We played less than 3km (2 miles) from the quay where the US 1st Marine Division shipped out from in July 1942. Much to our surprise we got through 4 months of the campaign and came to a clear decision over the two days. Attached is a pdf after action report.

The campaign system worked really well and produced some interesting challanges for all the players.

Regards,
Paul

Great read! Sounds like just about all the major elements were in play. Sounds like the IJN took a pounding but managed to stay somewhat in it to the end.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users