task forces break off - why?

[anarchyintheuk]

Ship commitment rates are based upon the total vp of ships (tvps) per side that are on the map. However, the tvps is different for each side at different times. IIRC the IJN starts out w/ a slightly higher tvps than the Wallies, but ends up w/ a significantly smaller one at the end (IJN 5000 tvps v. the Wallies 12000 sounds familar). The general rate advantage given to the IJN in Pbem games was so that Japanese player would have enough tvps for a fleet big enough to be a deterrent in 43 (provided it was still afloat of course). Spooky's site may still have something on this.

Just my guess, but the changing tvps was based upon the assumption by the designers that most people would use the historical campaign scenarios not 17 and 19, which are used almost universally. The historical campaign tvps were, not surprisingly, based upon the historical commitment of each sides naval forces to the area. By mid-late '43 the IJN had significantly reduced their commitment for a variety of factors (lack of fuel, large numbers of ships turned into fish sanctuaries, hoarding up for the decisive battle, writing on the wall, etc.) just as the Wallies were ramping up.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Ralf has been eating me alive with subs and almost all of the American surface ASW assets make better sub targets than sub killers so I have leaned heavily on airpower to try to suppress his subs. Ralf is doing a superb job of distracting me in one dimension so he can hit me in another.

thanks for the praise Hans, but I´m just doing my job. And early on I had severe headaches with my Uboats as you know...[:)]. Since I uttered some threat they start doing fine now.
Again I wonder where do you know I have carriers at Simpson Harbour...? Maybe it´s just a minesweeper you waste your Hudsons on!?! [:D]

I know because of the list of ships that pops up when I hover the mouse over the anchor symbol next to the base. I realize this is affected by fog of war and nothing is listed if the base has not been reconnoitered recently. I have flown enough missions to the base recently to get a detailed list....however last turn my staunch recon guys changed their minds about whta is anchored there and reported them as CVLs instaed of CVs which seriously undermines my confidence in the accuracy of their reports.......I could jsut be chasing phantoms.

I have no idea how many carriers you actually have as my game experience is limited. I know that with 200% ship committment (both sides) agaisnt Todd he had at least 6 carriers by the time we clashed in late June when I had 5. He sunk two of mine while I damged two of his (not nearly heavily enough for the loss of two of mine so that round definitely went to him).

With your committment at 160% and Midway conveniently never happening I ahve no idea how many you have in mid June. I will not tell you how many I had in mid June with 120& committment, but I imagine that as an experienced player you probably have a pretty good idea that it was significantly less than 5.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Ship commitment rates are based upon the total vp of ships (tvps) per side that are on the map. However, the tvps is different for each side at different times. IIRC the IJN starts out w/ a slightly higher tvps than the Wallies, but ends up w/ a significantly smaller one at the end (IJN 5000 tvps v. the Wallies 12000 sounds familar). The general rate advantage given to the IJN in Pbem games was so that Japanese player would have enough tvps for a fleet big enough to be a deterrent in 43 (provided it was still afloat of course). Spooky's site may still have something on this.

Just my guess, but the changing tvps was based upon the assumption by the designers that most people would use the historical campaign scenarios not 17 and 19, which are used almost universally. The historical campaign tvps were, not surprisingly, based upon the historical commitment of each sides naval forces to the area. By mid-late '43 the IJN had significantly reduced their commitment for a variety of factors (lack of fuel, large numbers of ships turned into fish sanctuaries, hoarding up for the decisive battle, writing on the wall, etc.) just as the Wallies were ramping up.

That sounds like it makes a lot of sense. Giving the Japanese a 40% advantage in scenario 17 seems to give them the ccpability to deliver a true knock-out punch so they can conveniently avoid ever having to find themsleves on the receiving end of the kind of drubbing they are capable of administering.

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I know because of the list of ships that pops up when I hover the mouse over the anchor symbol next to the base. I realize this is affected by fog of war and nothing is listed if the base has not been reconnoitered recently. I have flown enough missions to the base recently to get a detailed list....however last turn my staunch recon guys changed their minds about whta is anchored there and reported them as CVLs instaed of CVs which seriously undermines my confidence in the accuracy of their reports.......I could jsut be chasing phantoms.

I have no idea how many carriers you actually have as my game experience is limited. I know that with 200% ship committment (both sides) agaisnt Todd he had at least 6 carriers by the time we clashed in late June when I had 5. He sunk two of mine while I damged two of his (not nearly heavily enough for the loss of two of mine so that round definitely went to him).

With your committment at 160% and Midway conveniently never happening I ahve no idea how many you have in mid June. I will not tell you how many I had in mid June with 120& committment, but I imagine that as an experienced player you probably have a pretty good idea that it was significantly less than 5.

Oh yes... me dumb just forgot you´re reconned the base recently. [>:] Please erase my foolish comment from your memory.

[Bigdog128]

Words of wisdom, indeed. Just remember them in our Case Bleu game.....The Soviets want their chance for glory, too.

In our #16 UV scenario, I am enjoying it, and looking forward to the battles that lie ahead.

Bigdog

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Bigdog128

Words of wisdom, indeed. Just remember them in our Case Bleu game.....The Soviets want their chance for glory, too.

In our #16 UV scenario, I am enjoying it, and looking forward to the battles that lie ahead.

Bigdog

Sorry for the OT guys:

I seem to recall that in our last game it was YOUR partner who threw away the German army in the first three months of the campaign and robbed his Russian opponent of their chance for fun. You know that my command approach for the Germans in the north has been to husband my resources so I can fight the good fight later.