A Lemon rises in the East: SqzMyLemon (J) vs. JocMeister (A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: obvert

As for your 2E Netties flying from a level 2 base, you're lucky they flew at all! [:D]

I see this completely differently. They did fly and that's all that matters, whether it was from a level 2 or level 9 airbase, once they are in the air the airbase size has no further bearing on their success rate. I must have done something right. My Air HQ's leader was obviously good enough to get 20 birds in the air out of 32 aircraft available on a level 2 field. They were also armed with torpedoes so my settings were correct. Eight out of 20 aircraft aborted due to weather (which is completely out of my control). So 1 hit out of 12 aircraft, an 8% success rate for top notch pilots. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I think I did what I needed to do on my end to get a decent strike launched with the forces at my disposal. The results weren't great, and I have no control over that. I did my job providing the orders and necessary support and logistics, the results are completely out of my hands though...hence...luck of the die rolls determines the results. I could just as easily had all 20 Nell's attack and have hit three CL's, in this case I didn't, but I'm just saying one of these days I'd like to be the beneficiary of some great 'rolls' that achieve a more positive outcome, rather than always getting minimal results. It's not any deeper than that. [8D]

PzB complained constantly! [:D] Heck, even CR admits to flying by the seat of his pants at times, yet still achieves great results more often than not.

It's all good. I see things differently than others and that's on me, but it also reinforces why it's best I just shut up and play. If I'd have hit 3 CL's and never provided any details of airbase size or anything else, I'd be patted on the back saying good job. There's always a way to explain failure in this game, yet success is almost never questioned. Just like life it seems.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Update

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: obvert

As for your 2E Netties flying from a level 2 base, you're lucky they flew at all! [:D]

I see this completely differently. They did fly and that's all that matters, whether it was from a level 2 or level 9 airbase, once they are in the air the airbase size has no further bearing on their success rate. I must have done something right. My Air HQ's leader was obviously good enough to get 20 birds in the air out of 32 aircraft available on a level 2 field. They were also armed with torpedoes so my settings were correct. Eight out of 20 aircraft aborted due to weather (which is completely out of my control). So 1 hit out of 12 aircraft, an 8% success rate for top notch pilots. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I think I did what I needed to do on my end to get a decent strike launched with the forces at my disposal. The results weren't great, and I have no control over that. I did my job providing the orders and necessary support and logistics, the results are completely out of my hands though...hence...luck of the die rolls determines the results. I could just as easily had all 20 Nell's attack and have hit three CL's, in this case I didn't, but I'm just saying one of these days I'd like to be the beneficiary of some great 'rolls' that achieve a more positive outcome, rather than always getting minimal results. It's not any deeper than that. [8D]

PzB complained constantly! [:D] Heck, even CR admits to flying by the seat of his pants at times, yet still achieves great results more often than not.

It's all good. I see things differently than others and that's on me, but it also reinforces why it's best I just shut up and play. If I'd have hit 3 CL's and never provided any details of airbase size or anything else, I'd be patted on the back saying good job. There's always a way to explain failure in this game, yet success is almost never questioned. Just like life it seems.

SqzMyLemon,

Thanks for providing the details of airbase size and other stuff in your review of the recent action. Even though you only hit 1 Cl, you done good [pats him on back]. [8D]
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Update

Post by obvert »

I'd want to know your settings if you had hit 3 cruisers because that's definitely on the positive end of the spectrum.

Complaining is fine, but we also have to steel ourselves if we want to play a full game. This is loooooonnnnggg for the Japanese. The Allies get all excited in mid-43 while we just get up during the replay to walk around and mutter while the whistling of 4E bombs fall endlessly.

I cross thresholds every so often. This last one was more difficult and public but I'm over it now. I might be able to handle anything now with a smile! [:)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Update

Post by witpqs »

while we just get up during the replay to walk around and mutter while the whistling of 4E bombs fall endlessly.
Sort of like IJ bombs falling in China pretty much the whole game! [:D]
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sort of like IJ bombs falling in China pretty much the whole game! [:D]

[:D] Guilty as charged!
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Thanks for providing the details of airbase size and other stuff in your review of the recent action. Even though you only hit 1 Cl, you done good [pats him on back]. [8D]

I never know when you're pulling one's chain or not. [:D]

Yeah, I'm happy I hit at least one of the CL's. It's ok to want more at times!
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

Jocke's still out with the flu so any info anyone would like to see or know to fill the void?
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
Richard III
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Update

Post by Richard III »


I`d be very interested in what you might do different should you ever play Japan again, and why ??[8D]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Jocke's still out with the flu so any info anyone would like to see or know to fill the void?
“History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.”

¯ Leo Tolstoy
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I`d be very interested in what you might do different should you ever play Japan again, and why ??[8D]

That was an unexpected question!

I don't think I'd do much differently in terms of overall strategy. Establishing a smaller perimeter and building up a stronger defence is the way to go for me personally. However, I think I would be much more aggressive with my fleet. This would burn fuel and require adequate support and facilities far more forward then I usually allow for though. Upsetting the timetable for the Allied initial buildup is important and I do a poor job of it, be it from raiding to sustained blockade of major sea routes. It's probably the best way to catch Allied naval assets on terms of my choosing. Seek out and confront Allied forces on all fronts as often as possible, but not in order to accumulate territory. Destruction of units to gain VP's is what matters in the long run, not temporary VP gains from bases that you will lose anyway.

In a scenario two game I would go all out for China, the Aleutians, Ceylon and India up to Calcutta to delay the Allied advance.

Economically, I would expand LI in China from day one to make it self-sufficient for the entire war and be a net exporter of supply to Burma and the Home Islands and would not expand any HI, anywhere. I'd conserve the fuel for fleet operations and for transport back to the Home Islands...period. I'd slash the merchant ship building program to conserve all the HI possible. I'd cut out all late war CV's, CVLs, CVE's and concentrate purely on DD's, E's and SS's.

This game I'm investing heavily in late war aircraft. In another game I would concentrate on the best fighters for the lowest cost in terms of R&D expansion and supply expenditure.

Take this all with a grain of salt, I honestly don't think I'm very good at this game as Japan. The biggest thing that would improve my play as Japan is using a completely different mindset. Accept the game as is, few house rules and just concentrate on working within the game design to maximize the effectiveness of my units. What should happen has no bearing, only what does happen matters.

Probably not the answers you were hoping for, but this just gets a discussion started. [8D]

Oh, lastly...don't play Japan if I can help it. I need a break from the stresses of Japan with a nice easy Allied game. [:D]
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

Changed my mind, nothing I want to communicate to others at this time. [:D]
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Update

Post by Lokasenna »

My approach is to not take things super seriously.

As for your comments on playing Japan again... I've got questions:

1) Have you run the numbers on expanding LI in China so that it is self-sufficient on supply? Obviously this depends on how many units you have based here (and I doubt you can be self-sufficient for the massive land and air campaigns required to conquer the place). But is it worth the supply expenditure? What about simply expanding to match Resource production? 1100 days just to break even on the expenditure is...well, you know.

1a)Why not expanding HI in China instead? For 1100 supply to increase, you'll get 2 supply per day plus HI. Yes, it uses Fuel with Resources, but if you're taking advantage of the Magic Coast Road, then you'll suffer less spoilage from transport by having the Fuel stop in Hong Kong, Canton, Shanghai, etc. for production rather than making the trek all the way around to Fusan. Maybe this is something I'll run the numbers on... (Does anybody know where I can find out exactly how much fuel is lost as it travels from Point A to Point B?)


2) What have your merchant losses been like in this game? In my own Scen 1 game, I halted all merchant production except for the non-maru CVEs. It's quite the saver, but it's not as much as I would like...
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Update

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
while we just get up during the replay to walk around and mutter while the whistling of 4E bombs fall endlessly.
Sort of like IJ bombs falling in China pretty much the whole game! [:D]

Not in my game where China is four bases and a truce.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Update

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

My approach is to not take things super seriously.

As for your comments on playing Japan again... I've got questions:

1) Have you run the numbers on expanding LI in China so that it is self-sufficient on supply? Obviously this depends on how many units you have based here (and I doubt you can be self-sufficient for the massive land and air campaigns required to conquer the place). But is it worth the supply expenditure? What about simply expanding to match Resource production? 1100 days just to break even on the expenditure is...well, you know.

1a)Why not expanding HI in China instead? For 1100 supply to increase, you'll get 2 supply per day plus HI. Yes, it uses Fuel with Resources, but if you're taking advantage of the Magic Coast Road, then you'll suffer less spoilage from transport by having the Fuel stop in Hong Kong, Canton, Shanghai, etc. for production rather than making the trek all the way around to Fusan. Maybe this is something I'll run the numbers on... (Does anybody know where I can find out exactly how much fuel is lost as it travels from Point A to Point B?)


2) What have your merchant losses been like in this game? In my own Scen 1 game, I halted all merchant production except for the non-maru CVEs. It's quite the saver, but it's not as much as I would like...

I simply would not increase any HI due to more fuel expenditure. There will never be enough. Conserve.

If you need supply expand LI instead.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11130
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Update

Post by PaxMondo »

And LI has a 1000 day payback ... which means you don't break even for almost 3 years. You should never expand LI. Use that 1000 supply to go conquer another 20 LI base. [;)]
Pax
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

And LI has a 1000 day payback ... which means you don't break even for almost 3 years. You should never expand LI. Use that 1000 supply to go conquer another 20 LI base. [;)]

Going to do it Pax.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Update

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

1) Have you run the numbers on expanding LI in China so that it is self-sufficient on supply? Obviously this depends on how many units you have based here (and I doubt you can be self-sufficient for the massive land and air campaigns required to conquer the place). But is it worth the supply expenditure? What about simply expanding to match Resource production? 1100 days just to break even on the expenditure is...well, you know.

1a)Why not expanding HI in China instead? For 1100 supply to increase, you'll get 2 supply per day plus HI. Yes, it uses Fuel with Resources, but if you're taking advantage of the Magic Coast Road, then you'll suffer less spoilage from transport by having the Fuel stop in Hong Kong, Canton, Shanghai, etc. for production rather than making the trek all the way around to Fusan. Maybe this is something I'll run the numbers on... (Does anybody know where I can find out exactly how much fuel is lost as it travels from Point A to Point B?)


2) What have your merchant losses been like in this game? In my own Scen 1 game, I halted all merchant production except for the non-maru CVEs. It's quite the saver, but it's not as much as I would like...

My reasoning is this. Fuel and oil are finite, no matter what you do as Japan you can't produce more than what is on the map. So, expanding HI uses more fuel. That's less fuel for the Home Islands and for fleet use. I think expanding LI in China makes sense. You won't have to import supply, you have a surplus of resources and theorectically it will be your longest held LI on the map besides Japan.

If I play a defensive war and don't over expand there is no need to provide large amounts of supply to support ground forces on guano infested islands throughout the Pacific. I can also use more for fortress level defences. Supply not being used can be invested instead on increasing my supply generating capacity for the end game when fuel and oil are gone.

I've bounced some numbers around and I like what I see. I get the 1100 day thing, but that's to recoup all supply expended. After the first year you've recovered 1/3, year two 2/3 and year three all of it, so that's late 44 early 45. By that time I've increased Japan's supply producing capacity by 10-15% and it requires absolutely no fuel to do so. What's the fuel/oil situation going to be at that stage? How much HI will be shut down due to no fuel, how much supply is no longer being generated? Investing in LI is a long term commitment. It fits with my play style and frankly I've not seen anyone try it. I totally respect the views of players like Pax, Mike Solli and nygiants59 that always caution against this. I still have to try it. Perhaps I'll fire up an AI game and see what happens to discover what kind of numbers I can generate.

I like the idea that when Magwe's and Rangoon's production facilities are destroyed I can still produce the same amount of supply using resources only. I also think I can generate as much supply from LI sources by not expanding HI and increasing my fuel use. Has anyone ever calculated how much more fuel is consumed over 4 years by substantial HI expansion? Fuel that might have been used to conduct much more robust fleet operations that could delay an Allied advance, or transported directly to Japan so the stockpile is as high as it can be for the endgame, lessening the pressure to hold onto far flung production facilities?

I guess if there is one thing I've learned about playing Japan, is that it's all about compromise. If you want more of one thing, you must give up something in return. If I want more fuel for fleet use, I must reduce my HI consumption of it. If I reduce my HI potential by not expanding to conserve fuel, I must pool more HI by giving up merchant and naval construction, build fewer aircraft or maximize powerplant use by producing only single engine aircraft...etc. I really think it comes down to your overall strategy and how you want to play the endgame. Myself, I want supply and HI so I can keep an army supplied, an air force flying and my production ability functioning as long as possible. I won't need much of a navy or fuel at that point. Aircraft and LCU's require an awful amount of supply to function properly so increasing supply without using up even more fuel to do so makes sense, to me at least.

I'm just bouncing ideas. Since every Allied player knows fuel is the Achilles Heel of Japan, does it not make sense to try a new approach? Fuel and oil will run out, it always does. What if you were able to conduct your economy in such a way as to maximize your pools for the end game, when fuel and oil are no longer available, yet you have the needed supply and HI to fight it out until the bitter end?
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Update

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

And LI has a 1000 day payback ... which means you don't break even for almost 3 years. You should never expand LI. Use that 1000 supply to go conquer another 20 LI base. [;)]

Unless you plan to hold it for three years, in which case expand it. I'm now reaping the benefits of the expansions in China, Manchuria and the HI, which are the only places I would do this. They may be firebombed in th next few months, but I'm still positive on supply. There also were not any more 20 LI bases to conquer when I did this. [;)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Update

Post by Lokasenna »

Really quick before I go to bed, I guess my thought on expanding HI was that you get the supply back sooner (and still at a 1:1 rate vis-a-vis Resources), and even though it means less fuel to the Home Islands the fuel is still going into HI production. This is assuming you still spend the same. It would be like frontloading your HI production in order to cut back on spoilage from transit over the Magic Coast Road and not having to ship supplies into the theater, thereby saving on some fuel running xAKs to China. Does anybody know what percent of fuel is lost by transit over the Magic Coast Road?

Yes, you'd run out of fuel in Japan sooner, but you'd also have at least the same amount of HI in the bank*. Assuming you changed nothing else from how you'd otherwise play except expanding HI. Which is a big assumption. I'm not saying I'm brave enough to try it, but conceptually I don't think it's such a huge leap. Since it wouldn't be a large amount of expansion to begin with, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort of calculating it out.

* - finite amount of oil=fuel means finite amount of HI produced, means that if you produce HI sooner that you'll run out of fuel sooner, not necessarily produce less HI over the entire game. Theoretically, the curve could be such that expanding HI up to X amount would result in a net increase in HI production throughout the war. It's also possible that X is 0 or negative, meaning that there's no benefit to doing so. And of course the curve would shift depending on pace of operations, when your opponent breaches your perimeters, etc.


But we digress from reporting on actions after they occur...
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11130
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Update

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

And LI has a 1000 day payback ... which means you don't break even for almost 3 years. You should never expand LI. Use that 1000 supply to go conquer another 20 LI base. [;)]

Unless you plan to hold it for three years, in which case expand it. I'm now reaping the benefits of the expansions in China, Manchuria and the HI, which are the only places I would do this. They may be firebombed in th next few months, but I'm still positive on supply. There also were not any more 20 LI bases to conquer when I did this. [;)]
I'm sorry Eric ...

but you are early '45. That means you expanded the LI in Jan/Feb 42? and you will 'benefit' for 2 - 3 months? that's 60 - 90 supply per 1000 spent, a terrible ROI ... and you will earn the allies more VP's when they destroy the factories? And you lost the use of 1000's of supply when you could have been expanding your empire in early-mid '42 when most IJ players are running short of everything including supply? And any expansoin on the HI means spedning more fuel to move more resources? I can't see the logic at all here, sorry. we agree on most things, but not this one.
Pax
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Update

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Really quick before I go to bed, I guess my thought on expanding HI was that you get the supply back sooner (and still at a 1:1 rate vis-a-vis Resources), and even though it means less fuel to the Home Islands the fuel is still going into HI production. This is assuming you still spend the same. It would be like frontloading your HI production in order to cut back on spoilage from transit over the Magic Coast Road and not having to ship supplies into the theater, thereby saving on some fuel running xAKs to China. Does anybody know what percent of fuel is lost by transit over the Magic Coast Road?

Yes, you'd run out of fuel in Japan sooner, but you'd also have at least the same amount of HI in the bank*. Assuming you changed nothing else from how you'd otherwise play except expanding HI. Which is a big assumption. I'm not saying I'm brave enough to try it, but conceptually I don't think it's such a huge leap. Since it wouldn't be a large amount of expansion to begin with, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort of calculating it out.

* - finite amount of oil=fuel means finite amount of HI produced, means that if you produce HI sooner that you'll run out of fuel sooner, not necessarily produce less HI over the entire game. Theoretically, the curve could be such that expanding HI up to X amount would result in a net increase in HI production throughout the war. It's also possible that X is 0 or negative, meaning that there's no benefit to doing so. And of course the curve would shift depending on pace of operations, when your opponent breaches your perimeters, etc.


But we digress from reporting on actions after they occur...

Yes, it is front loading but with added cost in supply if those bases are trashed before the cost to expand is redeemed. So in my case I built some HI in the DEI between 3-6/42. So if those are trashed before the time it takes to make up the supply I might be losing supply and not really gaining more HI as long as a bombing campaign hasn't begun in the Home Islands. I can keep using fuel indefinitely if I still have HI factories in japan, but I've 'lost' supply in expanding those factories since they stopped producing in mid 44. If he's not bombing Japan in 44 with B-29s then he wil be bombing these DEI and CBI production centers you've built up before they've had a chance to make up the supply cost in building them.

I ship fuel/oil back as the magic coast road doesn't work for me, and I've had almost airtight convoy routes and protection up until now. I've only lost a handful of tankers. Of course I put a lot of resources into training ASW pilots and using those planes continuously, spending supply on that, spending a lot of fuel to run surface ASW TFs all over the place, so it's always a trade-off. The added benefit is that I've sunk in the range of 110-120 Allied subs.[;)]
"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”