Im getting crushed Rroberson v CV2 (No CV2 allowed)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In my opinion your sub patrol zones are too short. This causes a couple of problems. One is that the detection level on the subs can become so high that they are easily avoided. Another is that with such a short patrol zone - which appears to be across the expected shipping lane - your chance of missing the enemy TFs is increased.

What I like are long patrol zones along the expected route of the enemy TFs. I believe that this increases my chance of finding his shipping while at the same time keeping the DL low on my subs. It seems to be working: as of Jan 10, 1944 the sunken ships list shows 184 Japanese vessels that have succumbed to my subs. Yes, that number isn't entirely correct - but my guess is that it is a little high on combat ships and low on merchant ships.


Hmmm...how far would you extend your patrol zones. I have always used a basic single hex triangle. IN each area I wished to patrol I would operate at least two subs there.

I should add i used this with great success as the japanese...then again their torpedoes actually exploded once in a while [:'(]
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20695
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by BBfanboy »

I have noticed that my subs are more likely to get a shot if they end up in the same hex as the target at the end of each night/day movment phase. Most xAK TFs move three or four hexes per phase, but if they use some op points to finish loading before leaving harbour they will move that much less during the phase. Accordingly, I would start a zone about three hexes from the port and patrol out to seven hexes from the port - his TFs will have end up somewhere in that range during their second movement. Bradfordkay probably has other ideas too.

Some other experienced players like the "patrol around target" choice for patrol setting. It really makes the sub hard to track because the movements are so unpredictable, but you need several subs doing overlapping "patrol around" tracks to get good coverage. Also, if you pick a target point too close to shore, it can muck up the patrol tracks a bit.

Most important is to have very good naval/aggression stats for the skippers. If done carefully it doesn't cost all that many PP to change them.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

.....
.....
.....
.....

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do? [:-]
Image
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: South Pacific

Post by bradfordkay »

ORIGINAL: rroberson
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In my opinion your sub patrol zones are too short. This causes a couple of problems. One is that the detection level on the subs can become so high that they are easily avoided. Another is that with such a short patrol zone - which appears to be across the expected shipping lane - your chance of missing the enemy TFs is increased.

What I like are long patrol zones along the expected route of the enemy TFs. I believe that this increases my chance of finding his shipping while at the same time keeping the DL low on my subs. It seems to be working: as of Jan 10, 1944 the sunken ships list shows 184 Japanese vessels that have succumbed to my subs. Yes, that number isn't entirely correct - but my guess is that it is a little high on combat ships and low on merchant ships.


Hmmm...how far would you extend your patrol zones. I have always used a basic single hex triangle. IN each area I wished to patrol I would operate at least two subs there.

I should add i used this with great success as the japanese...then again their torpedoes actually exploded once in a while [:'(]


It depends upon the location. I can't give away too much information (operational security), but some of my sub patrol routes run from Truk all the way to the Admiralties, for example. Then I will send out another sub on patrol on a very similar route which overlaps that one but separated by a few days. This seriously lowers their DL and yet because they are running along a projected enemy shipping lane they have a pretty good chance of finding a TF as they patrol. I'm certain that there are other methods that work, but this has performed pretty well for me...
fair winds,
Brad
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: rroberson
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In my opinion your sub patrol zones are too short. This causes a couple of problems. One is that the detection level on the subs can become so high that they are easily avoided. Another is that with such a short patrol zone - which appears to be across the expected shipping lane - your chance of missing the enemy TFs is increased.

What I like are long patrol zones along the expected route of the enemy TFs. I believe that this increases my chance of finding his shipping while at the same time keeping the DL low on my subs. It seems to be working: as of Jan 10, 1944 the sunken ships list shows 184 Japanese vessels that have succumbed to my subs. Yes, that number isn't entirely correct - but my guess is that it is a little high on combat ships and low on merchant ships.


Hmmm...how far would you extend your patrol zones. I have always used a basic single hex triangle. IN each area I wished to patrol I would operate at least two subs there.

I should add i used this with great success as the japanese...then again their torpedoes actually exploded once in a while [:'(]


It depends upon the location. I can't give away too much information (operational security), but some of my sub patrol routes run from Truk all the way to the Admiralties, for example. Then I will send out another sub on patrol on a very similar route which overlaps that one but separated by a few days. This seriously lowers their DL and yet because they are running along a projected enemy shipping lane they have a pretty good chance of finding a TF as they patrol. I'm certain that there are other methods that work, but this has performed pretty well for me...


Good idea...i was doing something similar but with tiny patrol routes...if I get a turn back i may make a few changes
Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: South Pacific

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: rroberson

.....
.....
.....
.....

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do? [:-]
Reading between the lines - do you mean massive troop formations moved without PPs paid? If so, as far as what to do, that really depends upon you and your opponent in terms of your expectations and willingness to change them. No easy answer...
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: rroberson

.....
.....
.....
.....

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do? [:-]
Reading between the lines - do you mean massive troop formations moved without PPs paid? If so, as far as what to do, that really depends upon you and your opponent in terms of your expectations and willingness to change them. No easy answer...


Yeah that was a shocker and what drove me to start an AAR because I had never witnessed that kind of onslaught before. And as a long time Japanese player I couldn't figure out how it was even possible.

Really not sure how to go forward now. I do think I will either lessen this AAR posts or end it altogether. And at min I will slow down the pace of the game (Im still wavering on walking away). I play four or five at once at all times (I love to lose what can I say [8D]) and made this one my primary one because I love the pace he plays at (we did a month over the weekend) but I really really have a problem with gamey play and using game mechanics in the manner he has. It's not wrong because we didn't have many house rules and its different play styles but I am not sure how much time I want to invest in a game that frankly requires quite the commitment that this one does. I may well go looking for another long term player who can crank out the terms because I really REALLY would like to reach 43 in a game..... This all makes me a bit depressed though because I had high high hopes of finally reaching 43 with the bulk of my forces in tact. But I dont even know how to game the system and the only hope I have to actually compete with him is if I do.
Image
Sly
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:26 am

RE: South Pacific

Post by Sly »

Hello Rroberson,
I played with CV2 a game before you, scen 1 as a japanese, and your problems with a game look very familiar :-)
He is a skillful player but very different kind as I am, but its another story.
Fragmentation of units and micro invasions - you can pick one battalion or regiment and load into amphib TF with ships with same size (4x5000 AK,s) as i did, to got some companies :-) in antimicroinvasion duty hehe:-)
you can also buy cheap units as he can. If you change unrestricted HQ to restricted command (I Amphib Corps from CentralPac to WestCost) you can buy westcoast units a lot cheap. We did this both in our game and this explain a huge amount of his troops in unrestricted areas.
First of all you dont need to tread yourself as a failure because defeat in China, honestly his position in China was very similar as yours now. Main problem in china is a supply, chinese combat units can fight better outside cities in hard terrain, they got better supply there.
His invasion of Alaska looks like defasive action. He want to secure northern flank, its highway to Japan right? :-) good direction of first offensive
Good luck mate and do not have any complexes, as a allies he also lost 3 carriers in one battle against me, so its not shame
Ps. I am watching you :-)
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

I took some time off from the game as I had a trip to Seattle and thought a bit about all that was going on with it and decided to resign from the game.

I don't mind losing...god knows I have surrendered to you guys a million times over and keep coming back for more abuse.

But I just don't want to fight someone who from appearances uses the "programming" to gain a distinct advantage over his opponents. AND is unwilling to reach any type of compromise when that is questioned.

I'm sorry to actually lose this game because it rolls along at a pace that I really enjoyed but I just don't want to fight the programming when playing a war game.

I have 3 other games that are moving along nicely. I will create and AAR of one of those and let you guys laugh at my ineptness against those guys.

Anyway I just wanted to update you guys...and you will see another AAR soon no doubt.

[:D]
Image
User avatar
khyberbill
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: new milford, ct

RE: South Pacific

Post by khyberbill »

Good luck. I hope you like Seattle. My youngest son is a school teacher there.
"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.
CV 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: South Pacific

Post by CV 2 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: rroberson

.....
.....
.....
.....

Ah, I have done some forum exploration and it explains a lot. I entered into a limited silly house rule game with a player whose rep is to take everything to its extremes whether or not that was design intent.

perfect. Well at least that explains the blitz through china. I had no idea where he got all those divisions to do that never mind the massive amount of troops that were hitting the phillipines, singapore burma and australia all at the same time.

Now I know.

what to do? [:-]
Reading between the lines - do you mean massive troop formations moved without PPs paid? If so, as far as what to do, that really depends upon you and your opponent in terms of your expectations and willingness to change them. No easy answer...

No, I never sent any troops to China from anywhere. In fact I pulled 3 shot up divisions OUT of China... I did send in 3 bomber groups however.

He did in fact violate this rule though, twice. The 3rd Provisional moved into Manchuria (it is a perma restricted unit), and the 31st corps moved into Vietnam (also perma restricted). I didnt say anything because frankly, I didnt care. He was giving me points by sending these units to their deaths. Who am I to complain?
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

And as I suspected...a note from my opponent:

What commands are you releasing your units to? Dollars to doughnuts you are not buying them out at full price either. US units to IX corps, Aussies to 1st Aus corps, and Indian units likely to air HQs (personally, I transfer the Burma HQ to India so my units are at least in a ground HQ) I'll bet. Your air units, same thing I will bet. Yes, I transfer command of 25th army to Korea, 15th army to China, and 16th army to Japan. So, you can release ALL your units at a reduced cost, yet complain that I do. Interesting...

But of all the units I have released from those areas, the only ones you have encountered are:
1st div in Alaska. First use: Jul 42.
8th div in Port Moresby. First use: Apr 42.
9th div in Port Moresby. First use: Apr 42.
14th div on Luzon and Port Moresby. First use: Luzon in Feb 42
20th div at Adak. First use: Aug 42.
24th div at Geraldton. First use: Oct 42.
26th, 32nd, 41st out of China, badly shot up so it didnt cost much went to Japan, rebuilt and used at Perth.

Units released that you havent encountered:
7th div (Guadalcanal)
10th div (Munda)
12th div (Shortlands)
19th div (Port Moresby)

Hardly an abusive number of troops. Certainly well within the totals I could have released by now. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 33rd, 38th, 48th, 55th, 56th, Imp Gd, 4th Gd, 5th Gd, 6th Gd, Gd Armor, and a half dozen garrison units which are baby divisions (not counting many bdes and regts) are all units that I get that I dont have to pay to release.

Frankly not surprised by this though. Knew this game wouldnt last when you "surrendered" after your carrier losses.


My favorite part is the attempted dig at the end.

Nice enough guy, but has some real issues to what playing a balanced a sporting game means.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20695
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by BBfanboy »

His tone, especially that last line, betrays that he is sensitive and even petulant about getting called on the issue. That means he knows it is not right, even if it is "legal" by the game engine and lack of a HR about it.
That said, if you can come to an agreement that makes the game still playable and reasonably balanced, you could play into the period when the Allies get lots of toys and boys. He may not enjoy that though! [;)]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

His tone, especially that last line, betrays that he is sensitive and even petulant about getting called on the issue. That means he knows it is not right, even if it is "legal" by the game engine and lack of a HR about it.
That said, if you can come to an agreement that makes the game still playable and reasonably balanced, you could play into the period when the Allies get lots of toys and boys. He may not enjoy that though! [;)]


That's the thing that bugs me. I was trying to reach middle ground regarding how he was using his paratroopers. He talked me into seeing it his way and I went with it. When he used the Mavis L...same deal...but then after doing some reading of the forums I realized the HQ thing which had really bothered me from before...(all those suddenly free troops) that to me was too much.

The sad thing is, since I knew he wouldnt neogotiate regarding the paratrooper use...I didnt even bother with the HQ transfer issue. I already knew the answer and if I thought he was willing to compromise I would have been willing to continue on with the game.

ah well.

It did teach me a lesson.

I will always give house rules a solid looking over in the future. I had gotten use to playing against people who were like me and and played the game for fun...not win at any costs.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20695
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: South Pacific

Post by BBfanboy »

My son plays a lot of role-playing board games with his buddies. They have a name for people who create super-characters with no vulnerabilities because they can't stand to lose a battle or have their character eliminated. The name is "Munchkin". I guess if there is a name for the behaviour it is not all that uncommon. Their ego may be stoked by winning every battle but they miss out on the fun and unpredictability that comes with more realistic play - and they receive fewer and fewer invites to play. Sounds familiar, doesn't it! [:(]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Admiral Mitscher
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:51 pm

RE: South Pacific

Post by Admiral Mitscher »

I am sorry to hear that your game and AAR are finishing rroberson, as your AAR's are fun and informative to read. I feel also that it is no reflection on your playing capabilities, that you have had to end the game early. As you are a very good wargamer, and you just came up against not a good player, but a good loophole-lawyer.
CV 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: South Pacific

Post by CV 2 »

My favorite part is the attempted dig at the end.

Nice enough guy, but has some real issues to what playing a balanced a sporting game means.

Wasnt a dig. Was the truth. I knew the next time you were handed a defeat you'd quit. Was a matter of time. Played enough games to see it coming.
What commands are you releasing your units to?

I noticed you didnt answer THIS question.

So, as I said. Its ok for the allies to buy out units at a 25% rate, but not the Japs? Interesting...

The para stuff was mainly covered in these 2 E mails:
I didnt use a fragment. The entire Yokosuka Assault Bde dropped. Or at least as much as I could carry. The entire bde is there now, which Im sure you are about to find out.

And as I said, the Japs DID use squad to platoon sized drop to capture unoccupied bases (as did the Germans), so when they did it HISTORICALLY then yes frankly, I could give a rats ass what the "experts" on the board think. Ask them how many of them spent 11 years in the army, 3 of them TRAINING paratroops, Rangers, and special forces.

The Mavis L isnt a patrol plane. Its a transport. I dont have a mission list to search with it, or recon. It has the missions available to it that transports do. Nothing more, nothing less.

The people on the board claim that landing by sub is "gamey" as well, even though the US did it at Makin, and the Japs were planning to do it at Tinian as well. The people that oppose that are left-overs from WitP where you could lift whole divisions by sea. You cant do that in AE. Only airborne units can be moved by sub.

I guard my rear area bases - at least the ones I care about. I assume you will drop on anything within range of your longest range seaplane (PBY-4). Part of the game, part of war.

And yes, the seaplane torpedo exploit I have played against as well. While I will admit they did do it in the real war, the accuracy of the planes in the game is way out of whack. Like night bombing used to be (thank God Michael fixed that).

And
Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that it applies in all cases. Dropping a fragment on San Francisco for example. No way a couple dozen guys are going to "control" anything. But a remote island base with no garrison, or likewise a remote airfield in the middle of Alaska? 4 guys with BB guns could "control" it. So making a hard and fast rule on it isnt appropriate. Kalgoorie is in the middle of a high traffic area, thus I dropped the entire unit not a fragment.

He had "assumed" that I dropped a fragment on Kalgoorie when in fact I dropped an entire para brigade on it. Love how he presents his "facts" and people eat it up like they are actually "facts". As they say, there are 2 sides to every story. I dont think I used my parachute units in an un-historical way. Likewise, I didnt commit units to battle in a manner outside the "spirit of the game.

Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month. Look at when I sent released units into battle:
14th div in Feb 42 (2 months in).
8th and 9th divs in Apr 42 (4 months in).
1st div in Jul 42 (7 months in).
20th in Aug 42 (8 months in).
24th in Oct 42 (10 months in).

I released a total of 10 divisions in 10 months. Exactly on the "full price" timeline. Like I said, was just a matter of time before you quit on me. No dig, just a fact.
CV 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: South Pacific

Post by CV 2 »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

My son plays a lot of role-playing board games with his buddies. They have a name for people who create super-characters with no vulnerabilities because they can't stand to lose a battle or have their character eliminated. The name is "Munchkin". I guess if there is a name for the behaviour it is not all that uncommon. Their ego may be stoked by winning every battle but they miss out on the fun and unpredictability that comes with more realistic play - and they receive fewer and fewer invites to play. Sounds familiar, doesn't it! [:(]

You dont have a clue what you are talking about. Look at my AAR and find anything "gamey" or outside the realm of history in it. Seems to me you were one of the people criticizing me in an opponents wanted post I had where I had a whole list of suggested house rules, werent you? So I guess where ever the band wagon stops, you just hop right on.

Ask Sly about our game. I lost plenty of battles. Lost plenty of carriers. If memory serves I quit that game because he started flying his 4E bombers at 1000 feet. And there is no stopping 4E bombers in this game, so it was pointless to continue. That was November 43. So like I said, if your comment was directed at me, you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: South Pacific

Post by SuluSea »

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month.

Then why not pay full price as the designers intended?

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: South Pacific

Post by obvert »

Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month. Look at when I sent released units into battle:
14th div in Feb 42 (2 months in).
8th and 9th divs in Apr 42 (4 months in).
1st div in Jul 42 (7 months in).
20th in Aug 42 (8 months in).
24th in Oct 42 (10 months in).

I released a total of 10 divisions in 10 months. Exactly on the "full price" timeline. Like I said, was just a matter of time before you quit on me. No dig, just a fact.

It did read like a dig, however you intended it. [;)] Civil communication is key to having a good gaming experience here, and this is not helping your case.

I think the issue is not the schedule of release of your bought out units, but the price and the fact that this is not standard accepted practice as intended by developers. If the price is cheaper then you have the liberty of using PPs for whatever you want. PPs are meant to illustrate that there were issues that can't be easily simulated in game between various factions, governments and armed forces. If it's easier to move units to other HQs, then it's easier to do what they couldn't do then. I don't agree that everyone does things this way just because it's possible for the same reason I don't think everyone looks into their opponent's AAR because they can. Honor and respect govern the gaming experience here and that's something I really appreciate. If you do this and your opponent does not, and moreso doesn't want you to do it, then you either have to compromise or end the game.

I am one who actually agreed with your paradrop as completely within the rules of the game, not abusing any item or using a unit in a way it wasn't intended. It's pretty unrealistic that this could have happened and actually closed off the rail in that place, but the game doesn't model civilian involvement at all, so in game terms it works. The Mavis-L is as capable for transporting paras as any other transport. Just with great extended range, which is most likely why you used it.

The PP issue is really just something you need to clear up before the game begins. Make sure your opponent knows and is okay with how you want to utilize the PPs, and then it's all okay. At least now it's all in the open.


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”