The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Nemo121 »

You're being pretty flippant about some of your losses to date, CR. Those "speed bumps" you've thrown onto unsupported islands in the Gilberts may have gained you a week or two in the scheme of things, but I have a tough time seeing any RL commander so ordering the repeated extermination of thousands of friendly troops.


Well, I think this should read, "any RL WESTERN commander". The Germans and Soviets quite frequently sent troops into positions in which they were certain to be lost e.g. the Festungen along the Atlantic coast in 1944, the Festungen throughout Russia in late '43 and 44 ( weirdly enough Hitler was probably correct about the Festungen in 42 --- it just goes to show that a broken clock is still correct twice a day etc. So long as the strategic gains won by the sacrifice were commensurate with the sacrifice then those repeated exterminations were entirely justified.

To put it another way.... People often make a joke about the Soviets clearing mines by ordering men of the Penal Battalions to march through the minefield. Obviously this is a gross simplification since they didn't actually usually simply march through the minefield but they certainly didn't have equipment and were forced to clear mines far more quickly than was safe. The end result was that the Penal Battalions were a means of clearing mines very rapidly, by largely untrained troops without the use of any specialised equipment. In the absence of trained engineers with mine detecting equipment and/or if time was of the essence I would argue that the Soviet ordering of troops in to almost literally "march the mines clear" was perfectly justified. So long as clearing that piece of terrain in 20 minutes instead of in 3 to 4 hours of waiting around for engineers to arrive and clear them was worth the 50 or 100 dead then ordering them to march through the minefield was precisely the correct course of action and, indeed, NOT ordering them to clear it would actually have been negligent.

Western commanders mightn't think that way but Western commanders didn't conduct the majority of the ground combat during WW2. The majority of ground combat occured in China and the Eastern Front and in both regions the routine ordering of units into sacrificial redoubts OR into suicidal charges etc was not at all uncommon. Westerners make a joke out of the "incompetence" behind these charges etc but that's too easy an answer. Sometimes those suicidal charges were designed to use plentiful resources ( untrained, unarmed peasantry ) whilst protecting valuable resources ( trained engineers ) and, I would argue, they were precisely the right thing to do in many of those situations.


In this situation it is a pity that the invasions haven't stuck. CR should look into making them stick better next time but if the gain was, in his mind, worth the cost then he should continue ordering such operations in future.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by GreyJoy »

Nemo, it's always a pleasure to read you!
 
My opinion is that this game can be played in several different ways. The observations of Chickenboy imply a "role game" (is it correct in english?) phisolophy, where you pretend to act as you were in a RL environement.
That's just one of the ways to play WITP. Another way is to simply play it as a game, without any ethical or moral implications.
 
So i think as long as CR thinks the sacrifice of all those brave eletronic men was worth the delay imposed to John, then i see no problem in it.
 
I agree that in RL the americans would have never sent a marine regiment in a pure suicidal invasion.
 
But, at the same time, the americans would have never sent waves of PTs in suicidal roles to minesweep a heavily fortified enemy port (a thing that many allied players do). There are many many examples of things we usually do playin this game that RL commanders could have never allowed to happen.
 
 
Strategically speaking i do agree that forcing John to commit lots of resources for the Gilberts or Lungaville was a viable strategy. But I think that you should have had supported those invasions a little more. Simply landing there and abbandoning those atolls, without providing any kind of consequential support, let john retake them easily, while you could have forced him into an attritional battle that may have served your final goal a little better, imho.
 
The problem here is that you decided to go for Tarawa when the KB was at Noumea...damn too close! If the kB would have been in Western Oz, for example, you could have had the time to reinforce those atolls and fill them with SDBs and Fighters...thus creating an interesting environement for an attritional battle
Houtje
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:53 am
Location: Netherlands

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Houtje »

I agree with CR's analysis: up to the end of 1942 the IJ player can be expected to have the strategic initiative and force the Allied player to react. CR's various operations (Gilberts, Birma) have reversed this: maybe John had some ideas for large operations in 1942, maybe not, but these will now be much harder to carry out, as the advantage in CVs, troops, A/C etc. is coming to an end (even though this mod may give the IJ player more leeway).

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong: wasn't the 1st Mar. Div. more or less left alone on Guadalcanal for a long while? I believe I read in Bergerud's 'Touched with Fire' that some leaders (King?) accepted that they might have had to surrender and were thus, in a sense, 'expendable'.

Just my thoughts, of course.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

If memory serves, General Vandergrift at Guadalcanal had written up his final retreat and surrender plan. He entrusted it to one of his officers (Merrill Twining?) on strict pledge of secrecy.

I had nearly the full 8th Marine Regiment at Akutan Island, but only detachments of RCT at Makin, Tarawa and Abemama - the total at those three were much less than a division. At Luganville, I had an Australian brigade.

Here's my point. I'm playing a "shock and awe" opponent. Not only that, he's the architect of the enhanced mod we are playing. That's what I wanted, so this isn't a complaint, but rather just to give context here.

Instead of hunkering down and retiring in Sir Robin fashion, the Allies have parried and thrust here and there. Instead of using my combat ships, I'm using amphibious operations that create redoubts and provoke violent responses by my "shock and awe" opponent. This is exactly what I want, and I think it's a tremendously effective counter strategy. I've lost very little shipping in doing so, but John's lost a heckuva lot of destroyers and aircraft.

At the same time I'm provoking and prodding John here and there, I've also done much of heavy lifiting to arrange for defense (early in the game) and to prepare to go on the offensive (when the time comes). I've also created what I think is an efficient attritional theater (Burma/Bay of Bengal).

So, yes, I think John has been thoroughly outdone - by his own hyper aggressiveness, lack of good planning (failed amphibious operations), and solid Allied strategy.

Am I too modest?
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

I try to put myself in the emotional context of a commander of the time. Not that I could possibly know what that's like, but I try my best to do what they would have done IRL and, if possible, feel what they felt IRL. That's part of the game that I like best! In that context, there's no way that the Allies would so deploy troops with the intent of having them killed or captured as you've so done.

Witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth brought about by the surrender of the Wake Island garrison. That was only 1,500 military and civilians. Their loss (and the loss of wake) caused consternation through the highest offices in the land and were real morale blows to the American people in that dark time. You've magnified that 20 fold and apparently feel little to no impact from their loss. Call it 'callous', 'cavalier' or 'irrational exuberance' if you like-I call it detached from reality.

Sure, you've sold them for time. That's not disputed. I'm just wondering if you could have held John in check without their loss. I guess we'll never know...
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Am I too modest?

No danger in that. [8|]

I think, on the whole, you are being put in a good position here. Quite frankly (you'll notice I don't have a problem with frankness [;)]) I don't know whether this is due to your "brilliant leadership" or John's genuinely poor play.

GreyJoy said it well I think. I look at the role of commanders as part of the game-an important part that I get a real charge out of. Zuikaku got torpedoed? I feel visceral illness. The 5th infantry division got whacked or (worse yet) sunk at sea on transports? I question my ability to carry on early and often. You're not there-and that's OK-but you're not feeling the responsibility to my digital guys that I'd feel.

I hope that makes sense.
Image
Houtje
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:53 am
Location: Netherlands

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Houtje »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



In that context, there's no way that the Allies would so deploy troops with the intent of having them killed or captured as you've so done.


I sympathize with feeling for pixel troopers, but I don't agree that CR had "the intent of having them killed or captured". The intent was to engender a response from John and frustrate him. It worked, and a further, unintended, result was that the troops were killed/captured. It's an instantiation of the Principle of Double Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

I am not commanding men. I am not pretending that I am commanding men. I am playing chess. John is playing chess. I'm trying to win. Part of trying to win is to use my troops efficiently - to not send them in harm's way unless it serves a purpose. I'm not deploying them with the intent of getting them killed. I'm deploying them in a fluid situation in which there's risk and reward.

I feel a visceral illness when Enterprise gets hit, but not because I pretend there are men on that ship. It's because she's so valuable. The fact that I'm familiar with her real history adds to the experience, yes, but I am not playing as though there are little electronic men aboard.

We each have our own approach to the game. I understand why some folks enjoy the pixeltroopen aspect (I know Chez played with that philosophy), but I don't understand criticism for playing this as a three-dimensional game of chess where the only thing that gets hurt is John's pride or my pride.

Seriously?
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
In this situation it is a pity that the invasions haven't stuck. CR should look into making them stick better next time but if the gain was, in his mind, worth the cost then he should continue ordering such operations in future.

Yes! I agree that "making things stick" in '42 - or at least the first 3/4ths of the year - is something I need to work on (and I am).

I did plan to make these stick unless John threw the kitchen sink at me. He did, so I didn't. But I won the contest because he threw the kitchen sink at me.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

7/27/42

Bay of Bengal: An IJ sub misses a shot at Illustrious. The IJN carriers pull back a back to the tip of Andaman Island. No enemy air raids. Ramree airfield to size two and supply up to 2k. I agree that usually it's an IJ dream to have good Allied ships trapped in the Bay of Bengal. Here, though, the Allies have big airfields and lots of good fighters. I think the Allies can smash Japan carrier air power if Joh takes the bait and comes, so I've dangled tantalizing bait.

Burma: An IJA division and 7th Indian Division are in the same hex south (true) of Katha. But the Allies control all but one hexside and have interdicted road and rail to Myitkyina.

NoPac: More SigInt: Karafuto Mixed Brigade is aboard a maru bound for Umnak and is prepping for Cold Bay. 2nd Air Flotilla also at Umnak.

CenPac: CA San Francisco TF just reached Pearl (she had been posted down around Pago Pago for quite some time).

SoPac: Enemy subs nosing around Pago Pago and Fiji. USN carriers about 25 hexes from Tahiti.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I don't understand criticism for playing this as a three-dimensional game of chess where the only thing that gets hurt is John's pride or my pride.

You play with some house rules, no? The point of them is to make the game better reflect RL (at least in part) platform and other game-related capabilities, no? Why bother with this if this is a game of chess?

You're right. We are approaching the game differently. From my perspective (which is what I'm providing here), your approach is something I couldn't stomach.

That has-at some level-an impact on my opinion of your generalship as seen through mine own eyes. Your successful generalship may be compared to Zhukov. Or Konev. Victory where weight of numbers prevail. Congratulations.

It's not criticism, Dan. It's an (unwarranted) assumption that is not being realized as a reader. That's all.
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I don't understand criticism for playing this as a three-dimensional game of chess where the only thing that gets hurt is John's pride or my pride.

You play with some house rules, no? The point of them is to make the game better reflect RL (at least in part) platform and other game-related capabilities, no? Why bother with this if this is a game of chess?

You're right. We are approaching the game differently. From my perspective (which is what I'm providing here), your approach is something I couldn't stomach.

That has-at some level-an impact on my opinion of your generalship as seen through mine own eyes. Your successful generalship may be compared to Zhukov. Or Konev. Victory where weight of numbers prevail. Congratulations.

It's not criticism, Dan. It's an (unwarranted) assumption that is not being realized as a reader. That's all.

House rules aren't to implement a version of "real life." They are to prevent one-sided advantages that tend to throw the match off kilter - strategic bombing in China in 1942, Allied 4EB on naval attack (probably an artificat of WitP that's no longer necessary), paratroop assaults or sub invasions on non-base hexes. These have nothing to do with real life. These are to keep the match more balanced.

I am not playing the game by "weight of numbers." I'm parrying and thrusting carefully and effectively, prodding my opponent to do things I want him to do (and which he thinks he wants to do). For heaven's sake, it's July 1942. I'm not loading up sixteen divisions with 4,000 ships and blasting my way to Okinawa. This criticism is particularly silly.

Can't stomach my way of play? [8|] [X(]
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not commanding men. I am not pretending that I am commanding men. I am playing chess. John is playing chess. I'm trying to win. Part of trying to win is to use my troops efficiently - to not send them in harm's way unless it serves a purpose. I'm not deploying them with the intent of getting them killed. I'm deploying them in a fluid situation in which there's risk and reward.

I feel a visceral illness when Enterprise gets hit, but not because I pretend there are men on that ship. It's because she's so valuable. The fact that I'm familiar with her real history adds to the experience, yes, but I am not playing as though there are little electronic men aboard.

We each have our own approach to the game. I understand why some folks enjoy the pixeltroopen aspect (I know Chez played with that philosophy), but I don't understand criticism for playing this as a three-dimensional game of chess where the only thing that gets hurt is John's pride or my pride.

Seriously?

Its taken me a very long time but I´m slowly coming to the same realization. Its a game. Not a real war. The only thing AE has in common with the real war are names and locations. Thats pretty much were the similarities end.

I think what you have done has worked very well. You have John reacting to irrelevant things while he should be doing stuff that matter. Whether this is due to your play or Johns mistakes I think is irrelevant. It has put you in a very good position and THAT is what matters! [:)]





Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I don't understand criticism for playing this as a three-dimensional game of chess where the only thing that gets hurt is John's pride or my pride.

You play with some house rules, no? The point of them is to make the game better reflect RL (at least in part) platform and other game-related capabilities, no? Why bother with this if this is a game of chess?

You're right. We are approaching the game differently. From my perspective (which is what I'm providing here), your approach is something I couldn't stomach.

That has-at some level-an impact on my opinion of your generalship as seen through mine own eyes. Your successful generalship may be compared to Zhukov. Or Konev. Victory where weight of numbers prevail. Congratulations.

It's not criticism, Dan. It's an (unwarranted) assumption that is not being realized as a reader. That's all.

House rules aren't to implement a version of "real life." They are to prevent one-sided advantages that tend to throw the match off kilter - strategic bombing in China in 1942, Allied 4EB on naval attack (probably an artificat of WitP that's no longer necessary), paratroop assaults or sub invasions on non-base hexes. These have nothing to do with real life. These are to keep the match more balanced.

I am not playing the game by "weight of numbers." I'm parrying and thrusting carefully and effectively, prodding my opponent to do things I want him to do (and which he thinks he wants to do). For heaven's sake, it's July 1942. I'm not loading up sixteen divisions with 4,000 ships and blasting my way to Okinawa. This criticism is particularly silly.

Can't stomach my way of play? [8|] [X(]

You're doing just fine, comrade Zhukov. I'm sure that you'll prevail on points in the end. Congratulations.
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

Andre, given your preferences, I take it that you only play the Allies? Because if you put yourself in the position of really simulating the war, you wouldn't be able to stomach playing the Axis side. After all, you have death camps and forced prostitution and labor, and your men have raped Nanking. Right? So, should I be referring to you as Hitler? Come on, you need to back down and cool your jets. I'm being sarcastic to make a point. I of course don't think you're representing Axis evil. But for you to suggest I'm flippant with the lives of troops is just as ridiculous.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
pws1225
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Tate's Hell, Florida

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by pws1225 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not commanding men. I am not pretending that I am commanding men. I am playing chess. John is playing chess. I'm trying to win. Part of trying to win is to use my troops efficiently - to not send them in harm's way unless it serves a purpose. I'm not deploying them with the intent of getting them killed. I'm deploying them in a fluid situation in which there's risk and reward.

I feel a visceral illness when Enterprise gets hit, but not because I pretend there are men on that ship. It's because she's so valuable. The fact that I'm familiar with her real history adds to the experience, yes, but I am not playing as though there are little electronic men aboard.

We each have our own approach to the game. I understand why some folks enjoy the pixeltroopen aspect (I know Chez played with that philosophy), but I don't understand criticism for playing this as a three-dimensional game of chess where the only thing that gets hurt is John's pride or my pride.

Seriously?

+1

This is how I believe the game should be approached and enjoyed.
User avatar
paullus99
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:00 am

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by paullus99 »

CR - I think CB is taking things a little too seriously. Have a lost troops? Of course, do they really matter in the grand scheme of things? Of course not - the time you've bought with those "electrons" is worth its weight in gold - because fairly soon, you'll have more ground troops than you'll know what to do with - what is really important at this point is your air force & your navy - both of which are not "unlimited" assets.

John can feel happy about POWs or killing your men, but he hasn't regained the initiative or damaged you in any significant way at this point. He's lost a lot of time - time that you've put to good use. He's going to be desperate to try to attrit your carriers in some big way, so just don't give him that opportunity.

He dies the death of a thousand cuts....it'll drive him absolutely bonkers.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24580
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Andre, given your preferences, I take it that you only play the Allies? Because if you put yourself in the position of really simulating the war, you wouldn't be able to stomach playing the Axis side. After all, you have death camps and forced prostitution and labor, and your men have raped Nanking. Right? So, should I be referring to you as Hitler? Come on, you need to back down and cool your jets. I'm being sarcastic to make a point. I of course don't think you're representing Axis evil. But for you to suggest I'm flippant with the lives of troops is just as ridiculous.

I didn't think my tone was being rude, Dan. You're looking for opinions? You got one.

I think we all enjoy landmarking our progress in the game to the real war-how things progressed and when. You've done that several times already-indicating that you are cognizant to the historical timeline as a comparative. I do that too. Everyone does. History does matter in how you judge your success or failure as a player. The dates aren't randomly generated-as they could be in a 3D version of chess.

Similarly, we judge ourselves (or at least many do) on the basis of loss of ships or men to the historical comparative. How many BB did player x lose at Pearl Harbor? How many CVs did player Y lose in a fleet bashing near Midway? We all compare what we are doing in the game to the real life version of events. History is not irrelevant, as it colors our viewpoint of our success or failure.

To circle back around to your question-I only play the Japanese. I know less about their units, success and failure than I do the Allies. That helps me to brush off the inevitable losses that I'd feel more deeply were I an Allied player.

Enterprise was lost and, along with it the 2nd Marine Division it was escorting? I think I'd be sick. I'd take it personally. That's the way I've felt before playing the Allies. I can suspend my belief more if I don't know anything about the unit in question (e.g., the IJA 5th ID) going into the fray.

I can't think about the atrocities of war or let them enter into my game view. I'm sure you understand that would take the enjoyment out of it. But, on a personal level, I do have a hard time playing the Germans in most games-I can't quite clear my head of their history.

I do think you're understating your losses-whether you're consciously or unconsciously doing it is a matter for one of the professionals on the forum to take up. The fact that I have to read John's AAR for a detailed list of your troop losses on some of the islands is telling. The appearance of burying your losses in the text in the middle of a long post is also suggestive.

Anyways, I can see that my opinion here is outweighed by others. I've said my piece. No hard feelings, of course. I'll back off of this thread for a while too and 'cool my jets'. Hey, this discussion DID give you 20 quick posts to try to keep up with GreyJoy. [;)]
Image
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by GreyJoy »

Just to cool off a bit:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hey, this discussion DID give you 20 quick posts to try to keep up with GreyJoy. [;)]


You seriously thinkthese 20 quicky posts will be able to keep u guys up with the Hairy Asian Experiences? pufff.... It's the 4th most hit threads of all the times here on the board, having beaten, hands down, Dan's Festung Palembang thread against Chez...I'm looking at the heels of PzB's Hangover thread right now... No way you can think to beat me pretending you guys are arguing about "role gaming"! [:D][:D][:D]

Dan, the only way to beat me is, probably, to have a mirror AAR thread about a match between the two of us[8D]
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by GreyJoy »

*just kidding, obviously*
 
....and adding another +1 to this thread [;)]
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”