POLL: How many losses have you taken?

[11Bravo]

But seriously...good thread.

I play the games the way I would do it for real. My casualties are always light. No unnecessary casualties. Except enemy ones.

In my current scen 17 allied against AI, our kill ratio on ships is 9:1, even on planes, 2:1 on troops. And its only September. Those ratios are going to get better, and we are going to win.

[thantis]

After almost 300 turns, I still have to remember that it takes a while to build-up (especially the farther one gets from Noumea) for subsequent advances.

I finally slowed down enough to start building up supplies in Lunga (to supply my Solomons advance), but my NG situation borders on starvation most of the time. I send a convoy or two in their direction a couple of times a month....but since most of my operations have been focused towards Rabaul (from my initial landings at Talugi & Lunga in the Solomons) & the AI can't even supply their NG bases, much less move on to the attack, I don't really need Port Moresby or Gili Gili anymore.

It seems like once you've secured SE NG (PM, GG, & Lae) the AI switches its attention to the Solomons & pretty much leaves NG alone.....I've been able to concentrate the majority of my forces in the Solomons & really put the hurt on the Japanese since about October 1942. This doesn't mean I don't get the odd bloody nose (like the loss of the South Dakota & Ching Chong China Lee at Shortlands back in November 1942). But it does mean that I have a lot more leeway in supplying my forces, even with a reduced number of APs & AKs.

I could run riot right now due to my overwhelming superiority in LBA & warships, but I still need to get the troops to the beach, and supply them there, which puts the breaks on, just like it would historically.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by 11Bravo
In my current scen 17 allied against AI, our kill ratio on ships is 9:1, even on planes, 2:1 on troops. And its only September. Those ratios are going to get better, and we are going to win.

Games against the AI don't count............

[IChristie]

I find part of the problem is the time scale. The scenarios are quite long, but I suffer from the natural need to be "doing something" each turn, this usually causes me to overuse resources in a way that commanders in the field probably wouldn't.

Usually I end paying for this as everything on the board slowly looses combat effectiveness and things grind to a halt after a couple months of intense operations.

I am currently playing a scenario 17 as the US, and doing my level best to play to win the scenario in the end (rather than try to invade Rabaul by Jan 1942). If anything the current losses are lower than historical at least in LCU and ships (I've lost one major surface unit - HMAS Canberra). The air war has been pretty intense at times but morale and fatigue ensure that it tapers off pretty quickly.

What has everyone else found in campaigns which were very intense in 1942? What happened in '43?

[zed]

Another thing to remember is that ships accumulate system damage when not at anchor. I would rather have something to show for that, ie, engagement with the enemy, than just fall apart and have nothing to show for it. It takes a while for the Japanese to get either Tulagi or Lunga up to (3).

[thantis]

IChristie,

I'm at May 15th, 1943 as part of the semi-long campaign (historical Midway, June start)........

1942 was extremely intense and losses were heavy on both sides (though heavier on the Japanese/AI side). They lost both of their initial carriers (Junyo & somebody else) to an ambush, but my carriers also took a beating as 1942 went on.

Months went by without me having a single CV in theater. I managed to take Lunga, Gili Gili, Lae, Tulagi, Vila, Munda, & Buin in 1942 - and I lost CV Enterprise, Hornet, BB South Dakota, along with several CAs, CLAAs, & DDs. I also lost a good number of AKs & APs (particularly at Gili Gili & Lae, while Rabaul was still a nest of bombers).

After I solidified my control of the Eastern Solomons & the AI was running out of ships (around February 1943), its become a game of seeing how quickly I can jump from Bouganville to Rabaul, Rabaul to Kaveing, Kaveing to the Admiralty Islands.

Its not boring yet, since its an interesting exercise in keeping my bases supplied, watching for the unexpected BB rush from Truk (happened twice already - and I lost BB Tennessee to a couple of Japanese battleships only two weeks ago) - so its hunting season.

The tempo has slowed, but only because I have a huge infrastructure to support & you never have enough APs & AKs to go around. I've put too much into this campaign to end it with anything but a complete victory - its been too much fun to quit early - and I want to see where this goes (and Shokaku & Zuikaku are still out there somewhere - I want to see them on the bottom before this game ends).

[Sonny]

Originally posted by IChristie
.......
I am currently playing a scenario 17 as the US, and doing my level best to play to win the scenario in the end (rather than try to invade Rabaul by Jan 1942). .....

My scenarios don't start before May 1942. How do you get to Rabaul by Jan?:p

[Didz]

Originally posted by Sonny

But what is an appropriate strategy? Who defines it? And how bad will players howl when they can't do something they think they should be able to do?

Sorry! obviously didn't explain myself very well. The point I was trying to make was that if the game itself is properly designed then using appropriate strategy ought to result in a decisive victory over someone who is merely throwing troops at you with no regard to losses.

So! nobody should need to define what is a good or bad strategy because if the game has been well designed a good strategy will work and a bad one won't.

As for players howling because they can't do something they feel they ought to be able to do. Well we get that now anyway and TBH I'm probably one of the worst offenders.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Michael Peck
I ask this question because in every PBEM game I've been in (Scenarios 17 and 19), the losses are far, far higher than historically. In May '42, the Americans and Japanese can easily lose a half-dozen cruisers and numerous transports, leaving the gaping question of how many ships everyone will have left by December '43.

This isn't just academic interest. Campaign scenarios in many games break down because players always behave more aggressively than their historical counterparts. If you've lost more ships by August '42 than were lost in real life by August '43, do you discover you've blown your PBEM game 300 turns later? Does hyper-aggressiveness by the US or Japanese at the beginning of the game tend to unbalance it in the long run?

I know many believe that you should be left alone to reap the penalties for your play style. But I'm still curious what happens when you have the same number of ships lost at twice the historical rate. Perhaps someone mathematically inclined can compute some averages.

Michael

Very true....one reason why i often dont play humans in spite of the greater challenge vs a lackluster AI.......the simple reason that players tend to 'game' too much, utilizing strategies (agressive strategies) that make a mockery of the historical events being portrayed. No i'm not advocating that all wargames should be played like and proceed as they did in real life (whats the point??) but it does get a little 'twilight zonish' when you see blitzkrieg invasions against bases thousands of miles away with no real chance for sustainment in the face of the enemy (often w/ the realization that it cant be held but done to "put a crimp in the other player's timetable" cause some chaos etc etc. The ships lost and the men sacrificed are deemed a worthy trade in "game terms" In real life though it would be far different.

The points issue is another sticky one. Personally i never pay much attention to "points" because in the real world there were no "points".......the only condition(s) that matter are real world conditions.....have i held the line......did i successfully defend my bases.....take the enemy bases....sink his major warships....etc etc

Since the player is not going to be "pulled" by a higher power as in real life there's probably little that can be done short of implementing a set of harsh conditional/situational rules that will probably piss off more players than it pleases. Already there are a few in place though that seem reasonable. If the US takes Normua IIRC....the game ends......same for Truk. Outside of that dont see what else can be done since both sides can recieve (eventually) reinforcements that may give them a chance to get back into the game.

Besides which.......being on the losing side of the victory curve is a big part of this game. The Solomons conflict for example was decided from the moment the last Japanese foot soldier left Lunga, but the Japanese decided to fight for every inch of territory rather than withdrawl and end the attrition battle. Part of the challenge may lie in attempting to find a way to do better in such a situaition if your on the losing side of the power curve.

This is why serious gamers tend to implement "house rules" to try to make things a bit more realistic. I remember there was mention of it in PacWar...(revolving around massive transport invasions with like 10 divisions attacking atolls and such). A more recent example and one close to home was the great "airborne supply" debate over on the War in Russia forum....some innovative players having discovered that in the game you could not only keep a whole panzer corp alive soley via airlift.....but that you could retain mobility as well leading to "deep expeditions" 100's of miles behind enemy lines with the intent of cutting off key rail heads thus causing an entire front to collapse.

No way this could happen in the real world, nor would any German commander send a highly valuable panzer corp by it's lonsome 500 miles behind the front heading for the Urals. Thus 'house rules' are put into effect preventing players from moving units at certain supply levels and being sustained only by air transport.

I'm leary of making the game end early with two many conditions.....though usually the players themselves will conceed like in a game of chess if the situation is totally hopeless so its kind of unnessessary (who wants to play a 300+ turn game by PBEM if their in a totally hopeless situation?)

As for my own losses.....yeah...quite lopsided...on the enemy's side at least....all six prewar carriers sunk......one battleship, the 2nd modern crippled at limping back to Pearl......all current available heavy cruisers.........all CLAA's, all but one CL. All this by 10/42

Pretty twilight zonish but in this case, what rule would prevent the AI from doing simple bombardment raids of Lunga? Not out of the ordinary. The only "flaw" was in the AI's inability to realize that this was truely a losing strategy (something a human mind would have figured out quick) it only saw that Lunga was occupied and it's coding moved it to harrass it with whatever was available.

As for the "Penalty" well besides the massive points, there's the balance of power.......totally in my favor...the ultimate penalty

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Nikademus
....one reason why i often dont play humans in spite of the greater challenge vs a lackluster AI.......the simple reason that players tend to 'game' too much, utilizing strategies (agressive strategies) that make a mockery of the historical events being portrayed.

Colonel Sanders, thy name is "chicken".

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Didz


S........

As for players howling because they can't do something they feel they ought to be able to do. Well we get that now anyway and TBH I'm probably one of the worst offenders.

Amen to that!!:D

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Nikademus



V.................

The points issue is another sticky one. Personally i never pay much attention to "points" because in the real world there were no "points".......the only condition(s) that matter are real world conditions.....have i held the line......did i successfully defend my bases.....take the enemy bases....sink his major warships....etc etc

Since the player is not going to be "pulled" by a higher power as in real life there's probably little that can be done short of implementing a set of harsh conditional/situational rules that will probably piss off more players than it pleases. ............

But you see, the points to some extent represent you being pulled. If your opponent has twice as many points as you then you can pretty much assume that you would have been pulled IRL. But for game purposes (PBEM) that would just end the game cause there is no one to replace you. I think the auto victory conditions in UV are reasonable because they allow you to lose some and still make a comeback.

Here's an idea Matrix could put in: if at any time your losses are greater than a certain percentage (a sliding scale based on some sort of historical time table) then the AI takes over your position for a certain amount of turns (maybe like one month). At the end of that time - if you have not totally lost - then you get command back again. That way two rash players may have the AI smooth things out for a month before they can get back into action. This would simulate the high command pulling you.

O.K. a lame idea, but it might make you more cautious in your play.

[Robert Roberson]

I also pretty much ignore the points...I think of it similiar to how I use to play EU2.

Did I accomplish my goals, hold the territory, deny the enemy?

If so, then I won. Even if I paid a heavy price at the end of the day in terms of units.

I recently finished a great PBEM with Gus. IT was the Guadalcanal scenario. He won by points. I held Guadalcanal. To me that was more important.

Rob (at work)

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by dpstafford
Colonel Sanders, thy name is "chicken".

EH!

Dem's figtin werds.

Com'here an say that

:p

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Nikademus

EH!

Dem's figtin werds.

Com'here an say that

At dawn then......pick your fleet.

[Ron Saueracker]

I find that if you choose a ship availability level much lower than 100%, attitudes change drastically.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by dpstafford
At dawn then......pick your fleet.

very well......i choose, a fleet of Star Destroyers with the SSD 'Executor' as my flagship.

the Force (in this case......Bill's Windows' O/S) will not help you. Muuuuuwhahahahha


(actually in all seriousness.....i'm lookin to play a PBEM if one doesn't mind a one per day turn sequence....that and me being unavailable for the first two weeks of Augest)

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Nikademus

very well......i choose, a fleet of Star Destroyers with the SSD 'Executor' as my flagship.

the Force (in this case......Bill's Windows' O/S) will not help you. Muuuuuwhahahahha

(actually in all seriousness.....i'm lookin to play a PBEM if one doesn't mind a one per day turn sequence....that and me being unavailable for the first two weeks of Augest)

Well. Why don't you and/or "uncle" Bill get back to after your vacation. I wouldn't want to ruin that for you.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Robert Roberson
I also pretty much ignore the points...I think of it similiar to how I use to play EU2.

Did I accomplish my goals, hold the territory, deny the enemy?

If so, then I won. Even if I paid a heavy price at the end of the day in terms of units.

I recently finished a great PBEM with Gus. IT was the Guadalcanal scenario. He won by points. I held Guadalcanal. To me that was more important.

Rob (at work)

Well, in EU II things were more wide open and even though the playing field was not entirely level it was closer than in UV. The VPs in EU II are not as relevent to the game as are the VPs in UV.

It is good that you thought you accomplished your goals by holding Guadalcanal. But the points say that in the long run you did more harm than good. It is the same as the "this is the last turn so **** the torpedoes..." syndrome. IOW you won the battle but lost the war.