Nemesis...

[Nemo121]

Schlemiel,

As regards capabilities. I didn't augment the Japanese transport capabilities at all so when I made the invasion I landed 3,000 AV initially using pretty much every transport available ( including almost 200 xAKLs with under 900 tons of capacity ( 848 tons, 470 tons and 170 tons ) as well as FT TFs. I then flew in lots of troops using all of the air transports available to Japan. So the numbers were there albeit that it could only be done at horrific cost - I lost about 250 ships in the first week of the scenario in order to invade Okinawa.

My next major reinforcement run - during the Ishigaki Island Chain (IIC) battle - could have been crushed if the USN battlefleet had abandoned the landings at the IIC. One thing I like to do - Cribtop is reading this so should take note - is to give an opponent a whole host of options, all of which, in different ways, serve my purposes. But, the Allies had the capability to crush my forces. To do so they would have had to sacrifice the ground forces at the IIC. I believe my opponent believed he could win those ground battles and so perservered. I, personally, if I were in his position would have abandoned them to their fate and crushed the IJN and reinforced Naha. The IIC is an irrelevancy and allowing the IJN to escape was, IMO, an error. Of course if he had sent the USN in to defeat the IJN at Okinawa he would have run into the plan I had in place to destroy the USN if they took that option. I, personally, believe that if he had attacked into Okinawa with the USN at that time the preparations I had made ( and which I didn't reveal since I've had bad experiences with plans being spilled to my opponents by forum members ) would have resulted in every vessel he committed to that battle being sunk ..... but I might be wrong, that possibility of error and surprise is what makes the game challenging and interesting.

Bottom line, capabilities don't equal actuality and so when we talk about capabilities in 1944 and 45 for the USN pretty much everything is possible. A good Japanese player lessens what is possible and makes whatever is actually achieved much more costly than the Allied player thought imaginable. I think that's all that the Japanese player can achieve - certainly in 1945. I'm sure others could do better than I in this scenario but I think I'm doing reasonably well. I've made several mistakes but I've noted them and, hopefully, next game I will eradicate them. Every turn is an opportunity to make a mistake, learn from it and be better next turn, next game etc.

So, talking about capability isn't necessarily that useful as what a force is capable of is rarely what it actually achieves. You're right they have the capability. The question to ask is why that capability was frustrated/misdirected and, in some ways, turned against them and used against them.

As to Japan not being able to muster those forces secretly. Well, I didn't stage in forward bases but staged from within the Sea of Japan - which helped with deception operations and I'd also point out to the Japanese defence plans for Kyushu. They had significantly more troops and aerial and naval capability than US planners had realised. The game allows us to use capabilities in a different way than they were actually used. I've chosen to use my capabilities to invade Okinawa. The opportunity cost of that has been that I haven't moved nearly as much fuel, oil and resources as I might have if I'd devoted those ships to economic matters. However I decided that by pushing the US back I could make the Yellow Sea much safer for my shipping and make up for last time in November - which is my plan. By the end of November I plan to have emptied China and Korea of all of their usable resources and shipped them all to Japan.

In terms of staff officers. Well, don't forget that the IJA had only been very slightly involved in the war up until the Phillipines so in terms of experienced staff officers there were many available in the Home Islands, China, Manchuria etc. I think the quality of their forecasting and planning for the defence of Kyushu and their understanding that it might be followed by a landing around the central plains of Japan shows that they had good people still available.


As to amphibious-capable officers and doctrine. Aye that's a very valid point. On the other hand one could argue much the same thing should apply to USMC landings in 1943 wherein, historically, their amphibious doctrine was flawed and corrected over time through harsh experience. This is an area the game doesn't model. There are lots of areas the game doesn't model. I fully support the game modelling all of these areas perfectly but when push comes to shove I play the game as is ( except for HRs to fix obvious bugs ) and while I support michaelm in fixing anything which is unrealistic if something cuts both ways ( the lack of detailed modelling of the difficulties of non-amphibious experienced forces conducting amphibious operations ) then I choose to just play the game as is. As it was I had to use massively overwhelming numbers to allow for a 30% or so disablement rate in unloading ( which was down to lack of preparation ) and suffered huge losses to a relatively small defensive force. So, it was still hugely costly - although I figured the pay-off of capturing 120,000+ US troops would be worth it later.

Obviously though others are free to draw their "what should and shouldn't be done in-game" line in a different place. I respect that but I generally play the game as is. I view it as an interesting game which allows us to look at the strategic issues and which models many of the issues which were present to a reasonable degree of verissimilitude. I don't make the mistake of thinking it is perfectly realistic and will reliably give me historical outcomes when played in ahistorical ways. Others philosophies differ and that's fine. What matters is that everyone gets to enjoy the game on their own unique terms and that, in the meantime, some broad strategic lessons are generally applicable.


Schlemiel,
I think you under-estimate the difficulty of counter-invading Okinawa at this time and under-estimate the facility with which Japan could have moved POWs using barges, FT TFs and air transport. Using slow, large transports is a recipe for disaster so it makes sense not to do so. I amn't using slow, large transports at the front lines anymore. Instead I'm using up my small coastal steamers ( sub 1,000 tons capacity ), fast transport TFs, aerial transport etc etc.




Harlock,
Well, that counter-offer would have preserved the Emperor. It may well have been acceptable, even with the territories returned.

[Schlemiel]

Oh, I don't think the reinvasion of Okinawa could be achieved easily at all, and it would cost precious months in prep time that would help you that much more, as well as having a pretty great cost in material and a large opportunity cost in potential economic damage, since you have a network of supporting bases that would require some sort of neutralization. I'm sure future people playing the scenario will pay more attention to reinforcing Okinawa, though larger garrisons have their own opportunity cost. I'm just saying I can imagine a situation where leaving the prisoners there could create better opportunities than moving them.

I have absolutely no problem with the "gamey" aspects of the game, as any simulation will tend to have them. They make things interesting and raise lots of interesting "what ifs". I just have to wonder to what degree the system can actually model the difficulties a real counterinvasion might face. How many people familiar with the island would have been absent from the initial defense to ? What's to stop the US forces from pulling something similar to the initial Japanese defense with dug in positions but superior tactical equipment? Additionally, I wonder if the US wouldn't have been able to build fairly effective fire bases; I can imagine it anyway.

BTW, the talk about the public reaction in the US really got me thinking. Have you ever read the book In the Name of War by Jill Lepore? It is a fairly recent history of King Phillip's War in the late 17th century New England, and Lepore makes an interesting case for the way in which identity and a lack of differentiation raise the stacks and made the war more brutal than it might otherwise have been. Anyway, need to run.

[vettim89]

I think people lose sight of the fact that this is an Alternative History Mod; I freely admit I do it myself at times. If you frame this game in the historical context of where the forces of Japan were in the fall of 1945, the events portrayed here will not make sense. Nemo has said from the outset that this Mod/game is not in any way meant to portray how the historical approach and invasion of Japan would have gone without the A-Bomb, but instead a model where both sides can explore various strategic and tactical options available to the combatants at the end of WWII.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think people lose sight of the fact that this is an Alternative History Mod; I freely admit I do it myself at times. If you frame this game in the historical context of where the forces of Japan were in the fall of 1945, the events portrayed here will not make sense. Nemo has said from the outset that this Mod/game is not in any way meant to portray how the historical approach and invasion of Japan would have gone without the A-Bomb, but instead a model where both sides can explore various strategic and tactical options available to the combatants at the end of WWII.

+1

I agree in that I can't see how the allies would have allowed the starting situation to have ocurred. Nemo's hypothesis is fairly accurate and well known to the US military leadership. If you review the actions from '43 on, they were clearly put in place to precisely avoid the hypothesized situation. The A Bomb was also used for this reason: the Allied command understood what the probable troop losses would be from an invasion on the HI. Pretty sure they weren't happy about using the Bomb, but against the +100K forecasted US losses it wasn't that hard of a decision for them.

So while Nemo's suggestion is correct, it never happened and to construe events to get there is similar to John III's mod: it takes a lot of fantasy to arrange things to get there (starting with Nimitz has to be replaced with MacArthur, sorry, couldn't pass up the chance to "dig" on dug-out Doug. [:D]). Doesn't detract from the "what-if" interest, but it really is a "what if" and a pretty far placed on at that.

[Nemo121]

Schlemiel,

Aye, when I heard about it and its focus on interpretation I had hoped it would deal with hermeneutics and how language was utilised to present a particular viewpoint and how that usage changed over time as revisionism began to occur. As it was I thought that it didn't really say anything about history and war that we didn't already know in general and some of the attributions made by the author are unsupportable - e.g. Some guy robbing a bit of the Indian leader's skeleton and that bit happening to be the jawbone does not, IMO, readily equate to a sophisticated metaphorical attempt to "silence" the Indian side of the story. That sort of thing really takes away from the rest of the book IMO since it is so utterly unsupportable by the facts.

As to lack of differentiation raising the stakes and making war more brutal. Most of the psychological research on the topic shows that people are much more likely to be cruel if they do not identify with "the other" and thus where there is more differentiation there is more likely to be cruelty and violence. One reason why psychopaths are so capable of inflicting pain is that they don't identify with others and don't generate the type of empathy which stops most of the rest of us acting on our baser instincts.


Vettim, PaxMondo,

Well, my understanding is that the initial starting position of Andy's Downfall mod is as realistic as is reasonable without hundreds of hours of work. Since I used this mod as the basis for mine and didn't change any naval disposition at all and made very few IJA changes ( and the ones which were made were more than balanced by giving the US about 15 additional divisions ) I think it actually represents the situation around September the 1st 1945 quite closely at sea and on land. In the air is where it is more differentiated since it assumes that Japanese R&D wasn't as messed up as it really was and some of their experimental types were just either on-line or due to come on-line in September 1945.

So, it is a what if mod but navally and on the ground it actually isn't a what if mod. Only in terms of aerial forces does it become quite a what if mod. Taking Okinawa was done in the face of the USN and USAAF and they could have intervened and destroyed the landing force. So, that was done in competitive play and was, obviously, within the capabilities of the forces.

With that said it is also, unabashedly, designed to punish poor play and reward good planning and play by letting Japan remain competitive... you can decide for yourself how realistic that is. I will say though that, IMO, it shouldn't be at all difficult to knock Japan completely out of the war by the end of November 1945 in this mod... and to do so with slight casualties to the Allied forces. It isn't, however, my job to tell my opponent how to do that [8D]


Anyways onto the turn....

Ground combat at Naha (95,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 196652 troops, 1889 guns, 2232 vehicles, Assault Value = 5956

Defending force 72651 troops, 540 guns, 1739 vehicles, Assault Value = 920

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 3634

Allied adjusted defense: 1287

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Damn, I was just about 300 AV away from getting a 3:1 and taking the base. Ah well, 4 days from now I'll go again and I'll take it then.


Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
6329 casualties reported
Squads: 78 destroyed, 617 disabled
Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 44 disabled
Engineers: 17 destroyed, 62 disabled
Guns lost 53 (11 destroyed, 42 disabled)
Vehicles lost 168 (39 destroyed, 129 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

So, I lost about 134 AV of combat squads and AFVs destroyed.


Allied ground losses:
2741 casualties reported
Squads: 79 destroyed, 83 disabled
Non Combat: 21 destroyed, 151 disabled
Engineers: 165 destroyed, 175 disabled
Guns lost 82 (16 destroyed, 66 disabled)
Vehicles lost 112 (49 destroyed, 63 disabled)

In return the Allies lost about 293 AV of forces. In particular it looks like their engineers really took a beating. By the end of the fire phase only the 93rd Infantry Division still had any AV left. The 97th Infantry Division and the Combat Engineer and Infantry Regiments all had 0 AV.

At the end of the turn Japanese AV at Naha had fallen from 5,960 to 5,336 while Allied AV had fallen from 920 to 581 AV. In 4 days time another 600 AV will arrive. That should help push my AV back to about 5,900 and then I'll attack again since Allied AV will have difficulty recovering above 700 by then. 2, perhaps 3 more attacks should see me take the base at that time. I think the Allies might be evacuating forces at this stage. I'm OK with that since any cadres evacuated will require a LOT of rebuilding. For Japan now it isn't about destroying forces as much as it is about mauling them and delaying the Allies.


Ground combat at Miyako-jima (91,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 42317 troops, 344 guns, 108 vehicles, Assault Value = 1402

Defending force 10499 troops, 185 guns, 114 vehicles, Assault Value = 53

Japanese adjusted assault: 380

Allied adjusted defense: 17

Japanese assault odds: 22 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), preparation(-), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
288 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (7 destroyed, 5 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1279 casualties reported
Squads: 53 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 46 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 20 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 35 (31 destroyed, 4 disabled)

The Allies here are, I believe, evacuating by seaplane also. Irrespective of that destroying 150 squads/guns/vehicles a turn is more than welcome.


Elsewhere the Japanese redeployment continues untroubled by Allied interference.

I put an 800 Kg bomb into the CV Indomitable at Manilla. That's 3 CVs hit over the past 5 days, not bad.

I tried a daylight raid on Saipan and while I torched 20 B-29s on the ground I lost roughly the same number of Ki-264s. So I'll have to hold back from further daylight raids for a while. On the plus side I found 150 USAAF and USMC fighters on CAP so that speaks of a significant re-allocation of US fighter assets from the front lines.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

It isn't, however, my job to tell my opponent how to do that [8D]

As always, an astute observation! [;)]

This is a great AAR. Keep going!

[jeffk3510]

Always enjoying Nemo. Just thought I would drop in to say hello.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Sidenote:
I query though whether the US would have considered a ceasefire in place if it lost about 50,000 dead and 100,000 POWs in the Okinawa + Ishigaki fighting? Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?

Personally, I'd think not. The pacific war was a much more brutal war than the european war (for americans at least), helped long by the fact that A) the Japanese were a radically alien culture and B) they'd attacked the us at a time of peace. Given the psychology of the day I think a large number of human shields would simply have confirmed American belief that the japanese were a dishonorable, aggressive, barbarous race (I use that word delibrately, we're talking 1945 psychology here), and had to be dealt with.

Its one of those cases where I think the Japanese were perceived as barbarians. Anything they did which confirmed that belief would make the average american more, rather than less, likely to pursue the war to the end, up to, and including depopulating the home islands.

The irony of course is that when push comes to shove nominally "martial" cultures like the japanese are generally more constrained in their behavior than your typical west european.

There's no way to know something like this of course, so its always going to be a matter of informed opinion.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Sidenote:
I query though whether the US would have considered a ceasefire in place if it lost about 50,000 dead and 100,000 POWs in the Okinawa + Ishigaki fighting? Especially since, at this stage, Japan would have had no issues with using those POWs as human shields - or even worse, pledging to execute a set number for each US invasion or bombing raid. Would the pretty certain loss of those 100,000 POWs have resulted in a ceasefire in place if Japan had made it clear they would have executed them if the war continued?

Personally, I'd think not. The pacific war was a much more brutal war than the european war (for americans at least), helped long by the fact that A) the Japanese were a radically alien culture and B) they'd attacked the us at a time of peace. Given the psychology of the day I think a large number of human shields would simply have confirmed American belief that the japanese were a dishonorable, aggressive, barbarous race (I use that word delibrately, we're talking 1945 psychology here), and had to be dealt with.

Its one of those cases where I think the Japanese were perceived as barbarians. Anything they did which confirmed that belief would make the average american more, rather than less, likely to pursue the war to the end, up to, and including depopulating the home islands.

The irony of course is that when push comes to shove nominally "martial" cultures like the japanese are generally more constrained in their behavior than your typical west european.

There's no way to know something like this of course, so its always going to be a matter of informed opinion.

On the other hand the powers to be, unlike the common folk, actaully realized the part they played to this end .. but as long as the common folk would keep dying for the cause the US was in it ... thank God for patroitsim [;)]

[Nemo121]

25th - 26th October 1945:

Today was a notable day for four-engined bomber activity and IJA offensives.

Four-engined bombers first:
600 x B-29s attacked into a trap at Kagoshima. IJA and IJN formations had been prepped for anti-bomber activities - meaning I had concentrated most of my fighters armed with 30mm cannon there - and went into action against the B-29s. Japanese forces claimed just over 100 B-29s downed in the air of Kagoshima but with the IJAAF and IJNAF losses on the ground losses actually turned out relatively even. On the other hand the IJAAF and IJNAF were trading 2nd generation fighters for B-29s so that's a good trade for the IJNAF and IJAAF.

Elsewhere well over 600 four-engined bombers continued to strike Formosan airfields heavily as well as Ishigaki.


A major USN armada was spotted leaving Manilla. Kamikaze and naval strike groups were moved into position around Formosa and it appears the USN TFs aborted their mission. I think though that this was a test as, in reality, I doubt my opponent would have aborted a mission so easily. I think he just wanted to identify which airfields I would base planes into to resist him. Unfortunately for him my planning doesn't involve repulsing him on the advance march but rather, letting him in, letting him land and then splitting his forces and trying to destroy them as they egress.


The IJA continues to attack at Miyako Jima and Naha with the arrival of another 2 division equivalents of troops at Naha.

On the 26th the US Army forces at Miyako are completely wiped out, freeing my forces to be redeployed to Ishigaki and to begin reducing the invaders on that island.

On the same day the Allied base of Naha falls and the troops there surrender to IJA forces. With the capture of Naha the Allies can ONLY fly sweeps over the Home Islands from Iwo Jima. That means I only have to neutralise a single base in order to keep Japanese air free from Allied fighters. That's a huge victory as it means my most potent bomber-destroyers ( the 30mm-armed fighter bombers ) can now be used to cover the skies over my cities without fear of just being swept into oblivion by enemy P-51/P-47 sweeps.



Ground combat at Naha (95,66)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 228710 troops, 2184 guns, 2281 vehicles, Assault Value = 6466

Defending force 67449 troops, 520 guns, 1667 vehicles, Assault Value = 606

Japanese adjusted assault: 5216

Allied adjusted defense: 313

Japanese assault odds: 16 to 1 (fort level 1)

Basically the 300 US AV represents the AV generated by their support squads. The combat power of the 2 US Infantry Divisions was entirely destroyed during the fire phase.

Japanese forces CAPTURE Naha !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
F-5E Lightning: 1 destroyed
F-6D Mustang: 5 destroyed
F6F-5N Hellcat: 7 destroyed
SB2C-5 Helldiver: 17 destroyed
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed
F4U-4 Corsair: 16 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 3 destroyed
Spitfire F.XIV: 7 destroyed
P-47N Thunderbolt: 9 destroyed
P-51H Mustang: 9 destroyed
P-61C Black Widow: 8 destroyed

I was surprised to see this many planes destroyed on the ground. I wonder if I actually destroyed any of the airgroups? I doubt it but, at the very least, I've destroyed yet more P-51Hs, P-47Ns and F4Us.

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
6549 casualties reported
Squads: 115 destroyed, 317 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 8 destroyed, 44 disabled
Guns lost 68 (1 destroyed, 67 disabled)
Vehicles lost 74 (15 destroyed, 59 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
40185 casualties reported
Squads: 649 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5353 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 1094 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 333 (333 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2233 (2233 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 28

That represents about 7,200 squads or guns destroyed just today.

10th US Army, 2nd Corps, a USAAF HQ and the 97th and 93rd Infantry Divisions all marched into captivity this day. As well as lots of BFs, engineers etc. They can easily be replaced though.


In total my points for destroyed Allied ground forces went up from about 1100 points to just over 3,600 points. That represents roughly 10,800 squads/guns destroyed ( I don't believe the scoring algorithm counts vehicles as it doesn't appear to be doing so in this game )

This cost Japan some 700 points which equates to about 4,200 squads/guns destroyed - the vast majority of which occured in the fighting on Okinawa.



So, what now?
1. The IJAAF and IJNAF are going to be pulled back almost entirely to the mainland - in particularly the region east of Osaka/Kyoto. Elsewhere I will allow the US to bomb with impunity. Once I've finished upgrading my fighter forces to the A7M2, J7W and Ki-94/Ki-84r then I'll begin feeding them into combat again.

2. The Kuriles are pretty much all up to 500 or 600 AV garrisons each. I want to bring them to 1,000 to 1200 by the end of the month and then I'll stabilise at that level.

3. The garrisoning of Korea is on track with major fortification building and garrison increases ongoing.

4. Japan proper is a little less developed then I would like but it is coming along nicely with most of the absolutely necessary improvements completed and all that's left being the apportionment of divisions which have finished rebuilding.


So, it is coming together nicely. By November I'll be set and ready to fight even attritional battles on favourable terms against the USN.

What do I think the Allies will do?

1. I think they'll bomb Formosa and neighbouring islands to dust. I think they'll also bomb the Home Islands but be very wary of hitting Tokyo and other significantly protected bases as I've shown I can hurt his B-29s when he does that.

2. His low-risk option would be to invade Formosa and then use that as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for his move up the Ishigaki island chain.

3. Moderate risk would be hitting the Kuriles. I believe he has been building up to this for some time and I've carefully been "missing" his recon ships.

4. Elsewhere I think he could come straight for Japan - I think that'd be just intensely suicidal. With my first tranche of pilot trainees almost ready to graduate an invasion of the Home Islands would suffer hundreds upon hundreds of ship losses and his ability to actually take a base under those conditions would be gravely in doubt.


So, in short I believe he'll hit Formosa or the Kuriles. Either one could be successful so long as he brings enough forces and so long as he concentrates them appropriately. Wherever he goes though he won't have 9 to 10 division equivalents he has lost to captivity or quagmires around Okinawa/Ishigaki.

[PaxMondo]

Well done.
 
Wow.

[Nemo121]

Well, after Okinawa fell I haven't gotten a turn back.

My opponent is still involved in other ongoing AARs. He's also busy with work but I think he may have suffered a morale failure also.


So, given that it has been almost a month without a turn I'm curious as to whether anyone would be interested in taking on the Allied side. I mean, it isn't as though the Allies are going to lose or anything. Japan can cause damage but cannot win. I've sunk more USN tonnage so far than the entire remaining IJN consists of but I'm still outnumbered by at least 25 or 30 to 1 in terms of surface combatants.

So, anyone interested in taking over if there is a morale failure on this second opponent's part? I don't mind if there has been. No-one should continue playing a game they aren't enjoying anymore. I'd rather he quit than feel forced to play on in a situation he won't enjoy.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, after Okinawa fell I haven't gotten a turn back.

My opponent is still involved in other ongoing AARs. He's also busy with work but I think he may have suffered a morale failure also.


So, given that it has been almost a month without a turn I'm curious as to whether anyone would be interested in taking on the Allied side. I mean, it isn't as though the Allies are going to lose or anything. Japan can cause damage but cannot win. I've sunk more USN tonnage so far than the entire remaining IJN consists of but I'm still outnumbered by at least 25 or 30 to 1 in terms of surface combatants.

So, anyone interested in taking over if there is a morale failure on this second opponent's part? I don't mind if there has been. No-one should continue playing a game they aren't enjoying anymore. I'd rather he quit than feel forced to play on in a situation he won't enjoy.

Nemo -
I could do it, but can't promise a turn a day ... and I'm not as familiar with the Allies as I should be. Maybe keep me in mind if nobody else rocks up. You know I'm thick skinned.[;)]

[traskott]

Can I check the savegame file ? I can't say 'yes', but I would like to have an idea of the incoming job if I take the mantle. 

[Nemo121]

Damian,
I'd be delighted to have a rematch. I was re-reading the AAR from our last game just this week. I'd forgotten how intense it was. Re-reading it brought it back home.

Traskott,
I'll send the savegame file your way if my current opponent decides to pass on the game to another. Damian has first shot at it though but you might find checking out the turn file interesting nonetheless.

The biggest Allied problem, I think, is simply getting all of their strength into action at the same time. They have SOOOOOO much power that it is impossible to stand against when massed and precisely focused. Massing and focusing it can be tough though.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Damian,
I'd be delighted to have a rematch. I was re-reading the AAR from our last game just this week. I'd forgotten how intense it was. Re-reading it brought it back home.

I will duck out of this AAR now. Although I'm still waiting to see and accept terms, as I guess you are waiting for the turn and password back too.

For those wanting to see our first encounter where Nemo had me reeling & fluffing around interminably from the day he took over from Ny59Giants. Still I learned a lot and hope if I get into this one, I can defend India successfully...
tm.asp?m=1822230&mpage=6&key=

Actually, I re-read it too ... That was one helluva game. Still wish we had continued it, I still think we have the record for plane losses in witp that early (May '43 26,351)[;)] I miss that sort of carnage sometimes.

[gradenko2k]

I hope it's not too off-topic, but is this scenario released to the public? I checked the Scenario sub-forum and didn't see it in the first 2 pages or so.

[jeffk3510]

Found anyone to take up the Allies? Hope so. I really enjoy this AAR.

[Nemo121]

gradenko, jeffk3510,

I should post the ZIP file in the first post of this scenario. I accidentally deleted the latest version of the scenario - which was the one I was finally happy to release - and am waiting on my current opponent to email me back the turn files.

The game is on hold until such time as I hear back from this opponent as to whether or not he wishes to continue or Damian can take over. I haven't had a turn since 12th November and have suggested that it makes sense for someone else to take over - Life obviously just got too busy for him with work etc. I emailed a few days ago but haven't heard back since.

So, fingers crossed. We need him to give the password if this is to continue.

[AnthonyS]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, there's no plan or game so good that you don't make mistakes and even if you win there's value in analysing what went wrong and what you could have done better. I'm glad you are finding it useful but, really, I didn't go into any real detail about the tactics in this AAR. One or two of my older AARs would be much more useful if that's an area you'd like to focus on. In some of them I went into great detail on how to achieve specific objectives or how to counter specific tactics. If you'd like I could post some links.

Could you post some of those links? I would love to learn more about this game through AARs...

Thanks!