"SIr Robin" Ethimology

[szmike]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

By the game (as an Allied player), it makes perfect sense to extract every useful land, air and sea unit possible and hide out in the safe waters of Southern Australia

made me giggle [;)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: WRLertola

Let's not go to Camelot, tis a silly place.

It's only a model.

[bradfordkay]

Before I allow any unit to be withdrawn from the SRA, I have to ask of its commander questions three...

[AW1Steve]

At this point I feel compelled to say something that I've never said before , as I've been afraid of spilling a "AFB secret". The plain and simple truth to the question of "Why do a Sir Robin?" is because JFB's let us. I've only had one opponent who consistently shut down my attempts to pull Sir Robins. And he actually WANTED me to use that tactic. So that he could kill even more of my ships and cut off my forces. Andre , AKA "Chickenboy" , besides being the most formidable opponent I've ever played (and I've played many , including a few of the "Old Grandmasters") . And he does it right.

The IJN NEVER (till after Midway, when they had no choice) sent it's ships out without adequate air cover. And it rarely sent it's ships out without some previous air reconnaissance. Andre doesn't either. He uses minesweeper as they were intended (not as escorts) but to make sure that he almost never blunders into any of my mine traps. (And he very, very seldom has engaged any of my traps , unless he felt he could "take them"...and generally did). And he used the bulk of his naval air that wasn't scouting to cut off any retreat from the PI, DEI or anywhere else.

Many JFB's can't wait to start slaughtering Gaijin. They are easy to spot. They want to play the "ironman scenarios" that give Japan a big boost , they have long lists of House rules, and take a LOT of chances and short cuts. A really good and competent JFB (And Andre is among the best) has no reason to object to Sir Robin. He uses it to his own advantage. And he 1st learned the combat side of the game before he started on the "Factory manager in the Pacific" part of the game. Most of the "impatient JFB's" don't. At least I've never met one.

My point in praising Andre is not to swell his head , but to use him as an example of how useless a "True" Sir Robin can be against a competent , experienced JFB. I think of him as a WITP AE Terminator , as he plays "machine like". All actions are carefully planned , all opportunities considered , every single offensive action taken with care, a steady , consistent approach taken fully compliant with doctrine. You might say he "never gives a AFB a break".

Nemo once told me "Never play the game, play the player". While I seldom spend a lot of time with the psychological part of the game , I now live by this mantra.

And to all those JFB's out there , I offer you a mantra...."Don't fear Sir Robin...lay in wait and cut his head off". [:D]

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

And to all those JFB's out there , I offer you a mantra...."Don't fear Sir Robin...lay in wait and cut his head off". [:D]

Evil[8D]

[szmike]

I concur, sir Robin tactic works only if Japanese player allows it. Surely you'll manage to sneak out a couple of ships here and there, but that's it.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
So, from the JFB's perspective they see the Allies running ahistorically for the hills, avoiding naval conflict for game-related purposes and denying the Japanese player feasible grounds to establish victory (IN THE GAME). All this is perfectly possible in the game and is rewarding to the Allied player that disavows any historical rationale for standing and fighting / risking his naval assets until after January 1, 1943. Some Allied players go further and avoid serious confrontation until the Essex carriers come en masse or the CVEs start piling up or the Hellcats come or the Allied torpedo curse is lifted or...or...or...

If you ask my Japanese opponents they will tell you that I do not avoid naval battle at all. I will fight the Japanese as much as possible as if it were a "real" war, so I have a high rate of loss as far as early cruisers and battleships (the ones that survive Pearl Harbor); however, carriers are another story.

I would be more willing to risk these early war if it wasn't for two problems. First, the American and British carrier pilots and air frames are hopelessly outclassed by the KB in the early war. Fair enough, I'd still be more likely to use them if it wasn't the case that Japanese players (at least every Japanese player I've played) keep the KB together.

That moves using Allied carriers from the category of risky, but maybe worth it, to the category of imaginably stupid.

Against the AI it's different, but against a human... it is useless to say "but AFBs don't use there carriers, but they did historically," when the Japanese player keeps all their carriers together in a giant death ball that pretty much guarantees the Allies are absolutely going to lose those Carriers if they happen to meet the KB.

[cardas]

Not that I was around back then, but from what I've read the impression I've gotten is that there were less mechanically restricted units back in the day? So in the past you had greater possibilities to e.g. shuffle the Dutch airgroups or land units around. Now many of these exposed units simply can't be moved around very efficiently due to restrictions enforced by the game.

From my experience the lack of sufficient fighters to contest the skies means it's an attractive proposition to pull out at least some of your forces. It's difficult to use the naval forces you have in the DEI when you constantly run the risk of being hit by waves of torpedo carrying aircraft. Your ships doesn't have adequate anti-air to fight them and your fighters are short ranged, non-existent or piloted by sub-par pilots. At that point why would you bother keeping those forces around at all? Once the naval force is gone you don't have much reason to keep the very exposed ground forces around either.
Not that it isn't possible to surprise an invasion force depending on how the Japanese player advances nor that you shouldn't try to contest. As already mentioned simply giving in everywhere is unlikely to produced a fun gaming experience for either player and neither is it necessarily the best course of action for an Allied player. The quickly expanding Japanese naval search and oppressive air power can however quite swiftly make the seas a very unpleasant place to be for any Allied units. When that happens you'd ideally wouldn't want to have small cadres of units on exposed and unreinforceable islands, easy pickings for a Japanese concentration of strength.

Personally I think the early fights in the DEI can be pretty fun when playing as the Allies... well until the carriers comes around and wrecks everything without any chance of opposition. The reasoning that leads to the "Sir Robin" strategy is pretty clear though.

[Revthought]

You know, I realize it throws off balance, but if the carriers lost prior to 1943 were automatically rebuilt at a later date, I'd be much more willing to use those flattops early in the war.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

You know, I realize it throws off balance, but if the carriers lost prior to 1943 were automatically rebuilt at a later date, I'd be much more willing to use those flattops early in the war.

Just be glad that things have changed since WITP first came out. Then if you hadn't lost the Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp you would not receive the LexII, YorktownII, HornetII, and WaspII. The game actually penalized careful (or lucky!) players. Giving us all of the historically built carriers (and allowing us to rename those above mentioned) has improved matters quite a bit.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Revthought

You know, I realize it throws off balance, but if the carriers lost prior to 1943 were automatically rebuilt at a later date, I'd be much more willing to use those flattops early in the war.

Just be glad that things have changed since WITP first came out. Then if you hadn't lost the Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp you would not receive the LexII, YorktownII, HornetII, and WaspII. The game actually penalized careful (or lucky!) players. Giving us all of the historically built carriers (and allowing us to rename those above mentioned) has improved matters quite a bit.

iving us all of the historically built carrier

That's silly, because those carriers were going to built regardless of the loss of the originals.

Edit.

I have to confess to breaking immersion slightly when it comes to naming new ships. I try to stick as close to USN naming conventions as possible, but frankly, I hate them. The British were always so much better at naming their warships than we are.

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Revthought

You know, I realize it throws off balance, but if the carriers lost prior to 1943 were automatically rebuilt at a later date, I'd be much more willing to use those flattops early in the war.

Just be glad that things have changed since WITP first came out. Then if you hadn't lost the Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp you would not receive the LexII, YorktownII, HornetII, and WaspII. The game actually penalized careful (or lucky!) players. Giving us all of the historically built carriers (and allowing us to rename those above mentioned) has improved matters quite a bit.

iving us all of the historically built carrier

That's silly, because those carriers were going to built regardless of the loss of the originals.

Edit.

I have to confess to breaking immersion slightly when it comes to naming new ships. I try to stick as close to USN naming conventions as possible, but frankly, I hate them. The British were always so much better at naming their warships than we are.

Ummm. HMS Pansy?

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
Ummm. HMS Pansy?

Better than the Des Moines. And just recycling state names, town names, battles, and presidents is soooo boring.

[Canoerebel]

Yeah, USS Antietam is terribly boring. We can do better than to honor the highest single-day death toll in American history. USS Determined would be much more exciting.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yeah, USS Antietam is terribly boring. We can do better than to honor the highest single-day death toll in American history. USS Determined would be much more exciting.

It would be more exciting if it were the USS Sharpsburg. Not for any other reason than I think the Southerners were better at naming battles. Places are better than creeks for battle names.

[Canoerebel]

So USS Murfreesboro would sound better than USS Stones River? And USS Pittsburg Landing rather than USS Shiloh?

I like how the Navy does it. USS Iowa, Wasp, Intrepid, Enterprise, Gettysburg, Arleigh Burke and The Sullivans are rich in history and not at all boring.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
Ummm. HMS Pansy?

Better than the Des Moines. And just recycling state names, town names, battles, and presidents is soooo boring.

I like the convention because you can make a good guess at the ship type by just hearing the name.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

ORIGINAL: Revthought
The British were always so much better at naming their warships than we are.

Ummm. HMS Pansy?

And:

HMS Cockchafer
HMS Woodcock
HMS Redpole
HMS Thrush
HMS Spanker
HMS Gay Viking
HMS Beaver
sail frigate "Happy Entrance"

In the merchant marine:

SS Lesbian
SS Beaverburn

There are however some "honorable mentions" for the USN:

USS Saucy (PG-65)
USS Snatch (ARS-27)
USS Swallow (AM-65)
USS Blower (SS-325)

Not to forget the IJN DD Asagao aka Morning Glory.


Yes, there are entire website dedicated to strange / rude ship names. And if you turn to pleasure crafts, there seems to be no limit.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

So USS Murfreesboro would sound better than USS Stones River? And USS Pittsburg Landing rather than USS Shiloh?

I like how the Navy does it. USS Iowa, Wasp, Intrepid, Enterprise, Gettysburg, Arleigh Burke and The Sullivans are rich in history and not at all boring.

Yes, and incidentally, "Pittsburg Landing" was the original Northern name for the battle of Shiloh. This is a rare case where the Confederate name for the battle "stuck" even in the North.

Edit

HMS Gay Viking is an awesome name. Awesome I say.

[Chickenboy]

Probably my favorite British ship of all time is the HMS Glowworm. Plucky little bastard fighting unto the end in the finest traditions of the RN.