Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Big B
I find it interesting that - or should I say - 'it seems to me' that damning efforts to run away has been most pronounced by Japanese players...not Allied players.
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Not that I play the Allies often but I love to FIGHT from Dec 7th on! Too many Allied players play the 'Sir Robin' defense because they become appalled at their losses. It drives me nuts to see this. They will get ALL of it back and more as time passes. ANYTHING destroyed of the Japanese will not...
That people/players don't get this is amazing...
I think people who have played the Japanese - understand the weaknesses of the Japanese and the total "shoe string" nature of the Japanese attack. In some of the AARs ... like GH's a couple of years ago ... I think the Japanese side looked like a "steam roller" ... but those who play the Japanese know better ... hence we might make good Allied players because we would try to exploit these weaknesses. Playing an active defense is the answer. Moses played a combination of "bunker" and "hit and run" with me ... and .. to be honest I got lucky a few times. I sent my main strength initially into Celebes and was able to defeat some "minor bunkers" he set up and Ceram and Celebes. But if his defense was repeated in 5 more games it would likely be dangerously successful. His repeated massing and unmassing of fighters at Singapore scared the heck out of me. Singapore cost me 100 pre-war zero pilots. Port Moresby cost me another 100 pre-war zero pilots. By the time I'd captured both of those - the zero force was history. It is this "invisible" attrition that makes the active defense so powerful. But only Japanese players probably understand this. With a few exceptions (Tom Hunter for one).
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Big B
I find it interesting that - or should I say - 'it seems to me' that damning efforts to run away has been most pronounced by Japanese players...not Allied players.
I'm a Japanese player - and I'd much rather face the "Sir Robin" than the "Bunker".
If I ever get to play the Allies, I'd expect to play the "Bunker" ... or more correctly a combination of "Bunker" and "Hit and Run" ... with the later meaning "hit and run" with aircraft and ships.
ORIGINAL: Big B
Well herein lies the rub - it's the definition of Sir Robin.
Everything you laid out below Joe does not contradict the premises I laid out above.
You cannot 'bunker' unless you move units and concentrate. For example, there is nothing in Pt.Moresby at game start that could ever cost you 100 Zeros - unless the Allied player 'moves' something there...something he had to move from somewhere else.
That is what I have been trying to say - to bleed the Japanese you must concentrate power, and you cannot do so unless you move things...as opposed to staying in place and watch them rot.
Maybe I'm just talking past everyone and not understanding what they think running away is?
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Big B
Well herein lies the rub - it's the definition of Sir Robin.
Everything you laid out below Joe does not contradict the premises I laid out above.
You cannot 'bunker' unless you move units and concentrate. For example, there is nothing in Pt.Moresby at game start that could ever cost you 100 Zeros - unless the Allied player 'moves' something there...something he had to move from somewhere else.
That is what I have been trying to say - to bleed the Japanese you must concentrate power, and you cannot do so unless you move things...as opposed to staying in place and watch them rot.
Maybe I'm just talking past everyone and not understanding what they think running away is?
Absolutely ... Moses moved the 2nd Marine Division to Port Morseby. And did "hit and run" with 100-150 fighters trying to catch me with reduced escort as I had (near) continuous Betty/Nell bombing campaign against PM going. He was definitely concentrating power.
I have no agenda to contradict - I am just saying what I am saying!
[:)]
I am advocating for "active defense" on part of Allies ... whereas generally "Sir Robin" means evacuating as much as possible from the SRA, via any and all means, speacifially submarines which, in stock can "sample" all LCUs in the area to ensure they can all (eventually) regenerate.
[/center]
ORIGINAL: JWE
Quite right Henry. The 'backfill' scen is based on Tanaka Toshiro's alternate ops plan of Mar '41, with some very 'nasty' embellishments by contemporary members of 1 MEU. Oh .. the horror .. the horror! These guys are good. I'm glad I'm just the referee, if I was playing Jeremy, I'de be toast.ORIGINAL: herwin
Historically, Japan delayed its DOW on the NEI. On the other hand, this scenario would show the Japanese player why in reality they attacked America at the start of the war. It makes a lot of sense as a what-if.
Ciao. John
ORIGINAL: JWE
Quite right Henry. The 'backfill' scen is based on Tanaka Toshiro's alternate ops plan of Mar '41, with some very 'nasty' embellishments by contemporary members of 1 MEU. Oh .. the horror .. the horror! These guys are good. I'm glad I'm just the referee, if I was playing Jeremy, I'de be toast.ORIGINAL: herwin
Historically, Japan delayed its DOW on the NEI. On the other hand, this scenario would show the Japanese player why in reality they attacked America at the start of the war. It makes a lot of sense as a what-if.
Ciao. John
ORIGINAL: bilbow
ORIGINAL: okami
Sadly the "Sir Robin" strategy has become an institution.
In game terms the primary Jap objective is an auto-victory, and that is most easily done if the Allied player runs away. The Allied player saves units, true, but more importantly does not inflict casualies on the Jap.
As Jap, I need 4 to 1 in points for an auto. If the allied player fights and trades 2-3 planes for one of mine, he is ahead in terms of avoiding an AV.
If the allied player runs away, the Jap can advance quickly and without loss which opens up the opportunity to go for high-vp locations like Noumea before they are fortified. If I have to fight for everything, I kill units, but take losses myself, and most importantly don't get the chance for these big vp objectives.
The best allied strategy is to fight, trading initial forces for time. A good example of this is my game with Feinder (He updates his AAR occaissionally). He stood and fought, and lost a lot. But I lost enough so there was no auto victory. Now I certainly don't advocate the Allied player letting his carriers get ambushed like Feinder did his, but by then (9/42) AV was out of reach anyway. That bought me an extra year before the roof falls in on me, but hardly won the game.
Clearly the best allied strategy is to stand and fight and make he Jap pay. Anyone who sir robins me will be staring at an AV in short order.
Sure. Right now we are furiously working on AE finishing touches, but as soon as the alligators are down and the swamp is drained a bit, we'll run a game-month of turns and do an AAR.ORIGINAL: herwinCould we put together a number of these scenarios (or perhaps just first turns) for people to see?ORIGINAL: JWEQuite right Henry. The 'backfill' scen is based on Tanaka Toshiro's alternate ops plan of Mar '41, with some very 'nasty' embellishments by contemporary members of 1 MEU. Oh .. the horror .. the horror! These guys are good. I'm glad I'm just the referee, if I was playing Jeremy, I'de be toast.ORIGINAL: herwin
Historically, Japan delayed its DOW on the NEI. On the other hand, this scenario would show the Japanese player why in reality they attacked America at the start of the war. It makes a lot of sense as a what-if.
Ciao. John
Having read your AAR and contributed comments on the strategic abilities of your opponent, I believe you are drawing a wrong conclusion. In your game your opponent has used every game engine trick there is and thus the results can not be used in any meaningful argument on strategy. Against his attack there is no clear defense, for you are not fighting an enemy but the computer game. The basic premise of a discussion on strategy must entail that gamey or engine play is not tolerated. To your credit, you have allowed your opponent a great deal of latitude and still persisted in the game. Long after others, including myself would have thrown in the towel. The bunker strategy can and is used to great effect in current games. Many players retreat to Singapore and Manila from the very beginning of the game and try to hold out longer than expected. This usually does not work but sometimes is does. Sid's argument that an active defense, which could include bunkering, is the best solution to the "Japanese running wild in the Pacific" is the correct analysis. By slowing your opponent and damaging facilities he is trying to capture, you set up a ripple effect that will only come to fruition in the later stages of the war. Remember allied losses can be regained while the Japanese can not afford attrition. As the allies you can make mistakes and survive, as the Japanese most mistakes are fatal. As for the "Sir Robin" strategy, if used with the build up of rear area bases(USA, India, Australia)can not be overcome by an auto victory. Simple put by denying the Japanese player the points gained by destroying vast ground units and air losses, coupled with the increase of Base Value when you increase Ports and Airfields, will eliminate the chance of a four to one victory at the end of 42. Is the "Sir Robin" strategy historical? No. But it is effective if done correctly. Does in make for a boring early game? Maybe, depends on how the Japanese player adjusts to the situation. That is my two cents.ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
My experience, as allied player (which is not that good), is that an active defence against a jap player who advance with concentrated forces in the first 6 months is simply a suicide.
Probably some of you took a look at my hold AAR against Trollelite....if i had tried to make a stand on the beaches when he landed in India in mid Jan 42 with 10,000 AVs and the whole combined fleet now i'm sure i would have lost the whole India, Karachi included...while i still hold Karachi, 7 months later 8now in mid august 1942)...even if hardly sieged.
My idea of an active defence against this kind of jap player is to Sir Robin where he attacks and at the same time advance in force where he's weak, conquer a good position and bunker at his shoulders. Japan simply cannot be everywhere with its steamroller.
[/center]It certainly can be done, but I don’t think Matrix (or 2x3) would be interested; that’s just not their function. We have been looking carefully at the AI, and think we can help it out, some but, of course, we can’t rewrite it to any significant degree; we have neither the time nor the mandate.ORIGINAL: herwin
Question for Matrix: would it be possible to programme the AI to play the backfill scenario?
ORIGINAL: Big B
Well if you go back and re-read my original post you will find that there is nothing in it we actually disagree on - it seems it's just nuances of what I said you differed with, like my example of standing until the end to save the women and children - and then you quoted a story of facing overwhelming odds to save civilians in a village (I honestly don't see what you are saying is different.)
By the way - at Wake Island the Navy and Marines did raise a rescue mission rather than leave them to their fate - it was just 24 hours too late. It was also a good example of why no Allied commander with a soul would willingly leave his men to Japanese mercy, isolated and hopeless.
REPLY: Good points.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
....
You might have picked a better example if you wanted to imply I had it wrong. It is hard to think of a better case for NOT running with a small unit than at Wake. But the generalization about local politics does indeed not apply there - since there was none. Yet the rationale for a defense still existed. Other places add local politics as a motive: anybody get it yet? There are sound reasons for defending - not all of them local.
The whole point is that the Sir Robin Defense angers many Japanese Players because they intuitively know in the grand campaign game it diminishes their longer term chances for victory. For example If the Japanese player can take out most all US Naval strength piecemeal in 1942 for little cost (a typical 8CV vs 2Cv battle), then they will be much better placed to fight an Allied comeback developing in late 43/ early 44.
If the Allied player throws every aircraft he has at the Japanese in the Zero Bonus period (in stock) all he is doing is training up the Japanese pilots to perfection while loosing at about a 10:1 rate - this is not really in the Allied Players best interest.
On the other hand the most Allied Players intuitively understand that they must save what they can to fight another day - so they may make use of what they have most effectively.
I mean, this is just common sense. This is why players build up large bases full of fighters and bombers to dominate sea space - rather than piss them away on scattered airfields outside of mutual support range.
Everyone understands the basic principal of not squandering their assets - it's just an individual interpretation of what is important enough to risk assets over and what is just foolhardy.
