Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: veji1
Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: veji1
Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.
A valid tactic IMO. Desperate times, desperate measures.
ORIGINAL: veji1
Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.
ORIGINAL: obvert
Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?
Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.
A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.
ORIGINAL: crsutton
ORIGINAL: obvert
Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?
Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.
A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.
Probably not possible but I have for a long time advocated for a sliding scale. The loss of an Allied carrier in 45 should cost perhaps 3 times the VP points than it would in 42. Likewise the loss of an full Allied division in 45 as the war was closing should cost more. Americans were getting used to the costs of war but a major loss due to error would have cost a lot politically on the home front.
And in return, the loss of a Japanese carrier in 42 should carry a lot more weight than it would in 1945 when losses are practically unavoidable for the Japanese player.
This would encourage the Allied player to be more aggressive with his carriers in 42 and give the Japanese player somewhat of a bonus for saving as least some carriers to the end.
ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net
CRSutton those are great ideas on shifting point values for US & Japanese assets between 1942-1945. It probably won't happen at this point in the product cycle unfortunately, but its something that could be understood between players, or applauded in AAR's on the forums.
As for playing dirty, the Japanese player, as the ultimate "losing" side has to do whatever it takes (as long as its not gamey of course). When a nation (or movement) resorts to suicide attacks, its not winning obviously. But the Japanese are just trying to get to the negotiating table and not the atomic bomb. Harassing attacks, tactics that frustrate the heck out of the Allied player, well that's kind of your job towards the end. The US navy's experience at Okinawa, under relentless Kamikaze attack, was absolutely terrifying and enough to make the Admirals not want to embark on Operation Olympic, the final invasion of Japan itself. And arguably that kamikaze offensive was poorly managed.
Fortunately there's a lot of room for improvement by Japanese players! Check out these stats below:
According to John Costello's The Pacific War 1941-1945, and I guess this excludes Pearl Harbor, major warship losses in the Pacific theater were:
US Navy: 2 BB's 5 CV's, 6 CVE's, 10 cruisers
Royal Navy: 1 BB, 1 BC, 1 CV, 6 cruisers
Japanese navy: 10 BB's, 15 CV's, 5 CVE's, 36 cruisers
They probably did not count the BBs that were raised and repaired after PearlORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net
CRSutton those are great ideas on shifting point values for US & Japanese assets between 1942-1945. It probably won't happen at this point in the product cycle unfortunately, but its something that could be understood between players, or applauded in AAR's on the forums.
As for playing dirty, the Japanese player, as the ultimate "losing" side has to do whatever it takes (as long as its not gamey of course). When a nation (or movement) resorts to suicide attacks, its not winning obviously. But the Japanese are just trying to get to the negotiating table and not the atomic bomb. Harassing attacks, tactics that frustrate the heck out of the Allied player, well that's kind of your job towards the end. The US navy's experience at Okinawa, under relentless Kamikaze attack, was absolutely terrifying and enough to make the Admirals not want to embark on Operation Olympic, the final invasion of Japan itself. And arguably that kamikaze offensive was poorly managed.
Fortunately there's a lot of room for improvement by Japanese players! Check out these stats below:
According to John Costello's The Pacific War 1941-1945, and I guess this excludes Pearl Harbor, major warship losses in the Pacific theater were:
US Navy: 2 BB's 5 CV's, 6 CVE's, 10 cruisers
Royal Navy: 1 BB, 1 BC, 1 CV, 6 cruisers
Japanese navy: 10 BB's, 15 CV's, 5 CVE's, 36 cruisers
The US didn't lose any BBs in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor. Unless I live in some kind of alternate universe. Also not sure the IJN count is accurate (maybe it's not counting Mutsu?).
ORIGINAL: Cribtop
I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.
ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard
The difference in ship sunk is really impressive!
You've done far better than Japan in RL, your enemy is still far away from HI and his naval losses are huge.
This last battle is a clear victory for you with all those CVE sunk and his advance stopped again !
You should be really satisfied!
even if, of course, is a Pyrric victory 'cause you can't replace your losses. but all we know that in '44 Japan can only win this kind of victories. Japan could also easily loose badly at this point!!
I believe that if your opponent is pushing towards DEI and Philippines instead than HI is very good for you, you have banked resources enough to to make the industry run and so you can allow to loose territory in that direction.
It would be worse if he would open a new front in Kuriles or Mariannes to menace directly HI but it doesn't seem the case now.
Keep on like this and good luck [:)]
