War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

[Alfred]

Too many excuses being offered.

I keep on pointing out that AE is a game in the sense that it has far too much abstraction to be a simulator. But it is very much grounded on real world historical factors. I find it therefore incredulous every time I hear of players expecting to have "fun" with the game. The game deals with very bloody events and no one should get joy out of deliberately inflicting death and destruction, even if it is only done on a virtual basis. And yet time after time that is exactly the sort of experience which some players demand from AE. Obviously always expressed by people who have never had to write a real letter to grieving relatives, or themselves been under fire. I never see the real military professionals on the forum displaying such a blood lust.

Players who want an "even" game should take up chess. Or football, golf, bridge etc. Particularly if they play as Japan, they simply must understand that even in this game, they will experience to a certain extent, the same sorts of frustrations which the real world historical figures experienced. The game as it is in fact provides the Japanese player with a far easier time and path to "victory" than was the case historically.

Instead I see far too many players, on both sides, with big egos that they are simply better than the historical leaders and that in their hands, using their own "brilliant" strategies and tactics, they will do a lot better than the historical record. When their own play does not produce the anticipated results, they lose interest or blame the game.

Yes, there are far too many fragile egos out there who are just not prepared for the reality of this "game". They should stick to playing the AI only. For if one wants to be able to feed the ego that they were too good for a human opponent, they need to also be honest enough to admit that their human opponent is too good for them.

Alfred

[Canoerebel]

The one thing that shaped this game was my expectation/belief that PzH was not only a real auto-victory risk, but that he would definitely pursue the strategy. I knew he was good and aggressive, and I also felt sure he would draw on the able advice of players like Nemo, et al.

But its clear form PzH's AAR that he wasn't shooting for auto victory.

In effect, we were playing two different games. You can justifiably fault me for not recognizing the "lay of the land" more quickly. Or you might recognize and agree that it is really a fundamentally different game if the Japanese player is shooting for auto victory and is capable of achieving it. I think AV in Scenario Two is a definite possiblity. I think PzH arguably has the skill and aggression levels to pose a risk. He came uncomfortably close, partly aided and abetted by my style of play. A more bold (and gifted) Allied player could have parried and thrusted more effectively, but there's also a chance that had I played more boldy, I would have aided and abetted my own destruction.

As it was, the Allies were in good shape to avoid AV. In fact, the Allies were in very good shape everywhere but China, and even there the Allies had done pretty doggone well. The Allied navy and airforce was intact. The Allies had very strong bases in some important places - NE India, Diego, Cocos Island, and beginning to build in SoPac. Going forward, the Allies were going to be in good shape (with the probable exception of China, which is a noteworthy exception).

PzH was building an elaborate "trap" in NoPac and was hoping to draw me in there. But I wasn't coming. Ever (or, from a practical standpoint, at any point that would have mattered). I'm pretty sure the Allied offensives of late '42 would have focused on the New Guinea area and NE India.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You mean him thinking he could strat bomb Indian industry? I caught that particular gaffe on his part, though I don't think that made a huge difference for him, since he ended up holding Calcutta (which wasn't part of his plan until I retreated like a scalded dog).

I think I could've successfully defended Oz up to the point where I determined he was committing to India. At that point, I committed all my reserves to India, which left Oz wide open. I made the right call there, but I wasn't positive for awhile.

Well, I don't know how much strat bombing was in his plans. I remember some surprise on his part, but I don't recall details and it's months ago now. But if he had brought the kitchen sink I think Indian strat bombing, if allowed by rules, might have been a swing of 2000 VPs or so. It would have at least offered a second major Allied problem to add to China.

I also think it was possible to wring a lot more out of NorPac. He did need to take an AF closer to Seattle than he did, and he never threatened that. In large part he seemed to constantly underestimate how much land force he would need to take Alaska VP generators, and in that he frittered away his significant strategic surprise phase.

[SqzMyLemon]

Removed.

[John 3rd]

Sorry this concluded so early. Was--as always--a great read.

Wanna....play....MISTER Paddling Southerner?

[MAurelius]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Sorry this concluded so early. Was--as always--a great read.

Wanna....play....MISTER Paddling Southerner?

that would be a great idea Canoe.... at least you could be sure that the guy wouldn't quit early!!!!

[princep01]

As stated earlier, I am really sad this one expired so soon.  I was very interested in PJH "northern strategy" and wher eit would take us.  Too bad.
 
PJH and Oddball both earn balckballs from me as future opponents.  People who treat others players like they treated CR aren't worth the powder it takes to blow them up.
 
And Alfred, I don't have a clue what you are talking about in your above post.  That is truly a fine example of posting utter gibberish.

[Lomri]

It seems to me like people are saying you either get a Japanese player who is Whiz-Bang exciting in the beginning but then burns out on defense or you get a boring historical "dig in" long slog player. And it almost sounds like CR really likes the Whiz-Bang beginning Japan, the no guts no glory types. Advertising for a autovictory opponent is ASKING for that. And CR has even said he likes that era. Well, who knows if that is him just psychologically coping with the fact that it appears to be the only aspect of the game he has played in the last few years! (Perhaps a little self selecting to have your favorite part of the game the only part your opponents let you play!

But ultimately as a reader this is a real let down. In this one just like the last two we are left feeling like the interesting part was just yet to come.

Of course as a reader I have a lot less invested. Kudos for CR for being so resilient to this type of thing. When you start a new AAR I'll once again be reading just your side.

[Cribtop]

Sorry to see this end. CR, I know you plan to take a break and I get that, but I hope to see you back in the saddle again. Also, no matter how interesting the matchup, next time I plan to only read your side so I can participate more fully in the discussion. I read both AARs and limited myself to attaboy type posts in both. Not as much fun as being in for the full ride, so to speak. Lesson learned.

[House Stark]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
The one thing that shaped this game was my expectation/belief that PzH was not only a real auto-victory risk, but that he would definitely pursue the strategy. I knew he was good and aggressive, and I also felt sure he would draw on the able advice of players like Nemo, et al.

But its clear form PzH's AAR that he wasn't shooting for auto victory.

This seems to be the gist of it. You thought he was going for auto victory, when in fact he was going for victory by points in 1945/46.

Which does beg the question, would you feel "defeated" in the same manner as autovictory if you had failed to break Japan by the game's end?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

But its clear form PzH's AAR that he wasn't shooting for auto victory.

I thought he was at first, but it faded.

My impression right up until India went south due to the rules issue was he was mainly interested in sand-tabling two strategic approaches not well-explored in previous AARs: 1) NorPac as a VP source as well as an early unbalancer of Allied force deployments, particularly fighters, and 2) the early destruciton of northern China and it's fuel-based suppply sources, coupled with a multi-pronged feinting system on a 300-degree range around the map of China. Go look for his post with the map where he outlined his phased feints. I thought that was an excellent plan, if he could pull it off and if you bit. For some of the feints again I think he under-stocked the force jar and you didn't really see them as threats. A feint which isn't bit on is a waste of the forces which could otherwise have gone in the main effort. So perhaps he tried a feint too far. But the China "wheel" was a thing of beauty in conception.

[BBfanboy]

+1 on Lomri's kudos for the dignified handling of the game's end.

Re: Bullwinkle's post, I thought you did a great job of switching forces along internal communication lines to stymie his change in pressure points. I know I would never have seen the danger soon enough or reacted decisively enough. Defence isn't as sexy as crushing your opponent's units, but you crushed his strategy and, it seems, his optimism to carry on.

Re: Alfred and princep's comments - I get Alfred's point about the ego investment some make in their game plans and how it can be hard to handle when things don't work out. I am not so sure I agree that there are no military types here that understand how nasty real war is, or that have never lost comrades-in-arms. We all know that IRL we would never get away with the kind of losses we take in the game routinely. The lust for carnage is just the little-boy desire to see something exciting coming out of us. Nothing wrong with that in a harmless artificial arena.

Anyway, thank you C-r for your usual concise and informative AAR. I could feel the tension of not knowing what the heck was going to happen next!

[Crackaces]

And Alfred, I don't have a clue what you are talking about in your above post. That is truly a fine example of posting utter gibberish.

I am going to disagree with this post. Just because Alfred communciates in a style more akin to William F. Buckley does not make the message any less meaningful than Cap Mandrake. Both have interesting and thought provoking dialogue in two very very different styles.

I got three main meanings for Alfred's posts. One of which is that players ask that the game similate WWII despite the fact the game is a game and not a similaltion, and yet play the game with turpitude in terms of causulties. Although I might argue with Alfred citing Tarawa ...[8D]

Another thought I interpreted is that IJ players try and out do the historical IJ leaders rather than focus on a strategy that is aligned with the intent of the game. My own observations are that when this incongruence becomes apparent either the player squaks about the game, or they quit. I might agree with Alfred that the ego thing is at play. "It cannot be my play it has to be that the game is borked ..."No such problem exists for the Allies because they simply wait until 1944 and apply a strategy ... [:'(]

Anyway ... this game was interesting to me because I do believe the right IJ strategy in scenario #2 could produce AV ... victory as elusive as the fountain of youth ...[8D]

[Canoerebel]

Alfred's post lost me, truth be told. Sometimes, very intelligent folks say or write things without allowing for the fact that many/most of their readers think on a different level. In some of those cases (not saying this is true of Alfred; I don't know) the very smart people blame the listener/reader for not understanding, but the true blame may lie with the speaker/writer who fails in the art of clear communication. Talking "above" the the level of the listener can be good if it instructs the listener or goads the listener to learn, but not if it's just unnecessarily lofty.

I particularly don't understand the "fun/joy" comments. There cannot be many people who play this game who take joy in "killing/inflicting mayhem." Perhaps there are a few nutcases, but the vast majority of the forum is good people who are playing a game of chess on a three-dimensional and logarithmically higher scale (chess is exceedingly challenging and difficult to master, but it has but a fraction of the moving parts and rules of this titanic game). Very few if any people are guilty of "waging war" in some kind of abstract way that reflects poorly on our morals.

Probably, I missed the nuanced meaning Alfred intended. Is that the fault of the commicator or the communicatee?

P.S. Obviously, my thoughts here include a critique of Alfred's own thoughts, but this is not intended as a slam or criticism of Alfred. He's incredibly smart, organized and insightful. I welcome his thoughts. I want to learn from his thoughts. And, sometimes, it may help a vey bright instructor if he realizes that he's sometimes got to communicate at the level of his pupils.

[obvert]

+ 1

Very well put.

[adsoul64]

+1

Indro Montanelli (1909 - 2001) arguably the prominent Italian journalist and one with a huge ego as well, used to say "if a reader cannot understand me it's me to blame not the reader"

[Chickenboy]

Canoerebel,

I've only read the last couple of pages here after your comments in other threads intimated that this game had come to an end. I haven't followed any of either of AAR to speak of.

Sorry to hear about yet another early exit by your opponent. The discussions re: why and how to avoid this in future encounters are interesting.

For goodness' sake, you're not verbose, but rather well spoken.

Enjoy your respite and we'll see you around on the (other) threads.

[Dora09]

Alfred's post bothered me.
I'm sure he is a wonderful person and this is not meant to be a personal attack but I feel I must voice my disagreement here.

I reject the premise that if I enjoy watching my opponent’s battleship rolling over after multiple torpedo hits or the sinking of an enemy CV that makes me an awful or immoral person. These are 1s and 0s, not real people. Actually, I think we are in dangerous territory if we start placing moral judgments on video games (and film and music for that matter). For example, I don’t like to watch movies about serial killers slashing people, I don’t hunt animals, but I will unapologetically admit that I love watching my virtual armies and navies cause mass virtual death and destruction to my opponent’s forces. I don’t for a moment think that makes me the devil or Adolf Hitler. Actually, I think it is dangerous to attach morality to virtual simulations or entertainment. If someone likes to play “Call of Duty”, does that make them a monster beacuse they are shooting pixels in the shape of a human being? How about reading novels where there are murders or descriptions of warfare? If we start doing those sort of moral determinations (or worse yet adding validation of such ideas) it may open the door to the justification for banning games, books and music and to me those that would do that are the true mosters.

[Lomri]

Oh yeah, you aren't verbose CR. In fact I think you are very concise. You explore ideas and turns but you aren't taking us through a blow by blow. It makes for a very easy AAR to read because you don't have to wade through minutia. Although you could post more screen shots

[crsutton]

Well, I think the key to finding an opponent that you can rely on is just keep reading this board. I for one will choose carefully and try to find somebody who reflects my playing needs. And, you can be pretty much assured that if the person has been posting on this board for a long time, he/she will be around to play a game for a good while.

There are excellent players who who I have a high opinion of that I will not challenge because they have different views as to how the game should be played than I. But I would say that there are at least a dozen or more posters on this board that I know I would enjoy playing. Canoe is one. Of course, he would have to play the Japanese...[;)]

One thing I am not going to do is go to the opponents wanted section and just play the first guy who posts a challenge. I am too gun shy to try that anymore.

By the way, that is how I found my current opponent, Viberpol, who has been banging away with me for three years now. Had no idea who he was. But that one did work out pretty good.