Turnaround? Lowpe (J) vs Tiemanj (A) Stock

[witpqs]

What does "8000 feet" refer to? 8,000 yards range?

[Lowpe]

Meant yards.[:-]

Traveling all weekend and come home to three feet of snow. Oops, meant 1 yard of snow.[X(]

[Lowpe]

Our intrepid destroyers launch 3 torpedoes at carriers and all miss. We do plant one 12 cm hit on the flight deck of the Cowpens.

In other news during the night Nagoya is horrendously bombarded, by multiple taskforces. I finally got some CD guns there (DP guns) and even though they were unpacking they did fire at one of the task forces. I guess this means Nagoya will see an attack today or tomorrow.

During the day our bombers hit a port first, many get thru but no hits. This is the weakest Allied port...can't buy a hit. A few kamikazes sortie against two destroyers but miss.

However the Allies strike back hitting industry in Honshu and ports with B29s. They used P38s to sweep, and Japanese fighters stand up to them very well, but B29s on port strike at 7000 feet can't be denied. Ugly.

All the B29s aren't on port strike even. Losing the subs hurts.

[Lowpe]

B29s also hit Pescadores where the Tone is repairing, and plant three 500 pounders on her, while more B29s hit Keijo and sink three motor launches. Here, I worry about the last large vehicle factory for the Empire.

The Deathstar stays in the Yellow See and sinks a destroyer, damages two others and gets an odd merchant or two.

Plane losses for the day...



Please note that most of the B29 losses in the air came from the horrendously slow but heavily armed A6M5c.

[Lowpe]

An Allied Army, featuring some real beasts in the Australians, gets bogged down in street fighting in Nagoya.

[Lowpe]

Cam Ranh Bay is bombed heavily during the day, and supplies are low especially for the AA units, but the arrival of the heavy 1st ID secures the defense for the Japanese and Gardner's Horse is effectively 0 AV.

[Lowpe]

The most valuable ships sunk for the day.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Lowpe, how are you coping with so few political points this late in the campaign?

It sucks. [:D] I just bought out a heavy infantry division from Manchuko...

I really mishandled my PPs, I didn't use until the very end the ability to buy out troops and put them into air commands at 1/3 cost.

I still have several nice units I would like to buy out, either in China or Manchuko.

Oh well.

[Alfred]

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 
 
You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.
 
Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.
 
Alfred
 
 

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

That is good to know. Thanks![&o] I had people telling me the opposite... In my game with Jocke, we swapped emails on this topic and decided not to use it, but in the mod there are no free air HQ commands to transfer into or at least not many on the Japanese side.

The other Japanese ploy is to expand Naval squadrons, and I really don't like that either.

I could use a few Abrams about now...heck, I will settle for a Pershing or two.[:D]

[Lowpe]

Nagoya bombarded...

[Lowpe]

Another big bombardment.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

That is good to know. Thanks![&o] I had people telling me the opposite... In my game with Jocke, we swapped emails on this topic and decided not to use it, but in the mod there are no free air HQ commands to transfer into or at least not many on the Japanese side.

The other Japanese ploy is to expand Naval squadrons, and I really don't like that either.

I could use a few Abrams about now...heck, I will settle for a Pershing or two.[:D]

The expand naval squadrons ploy is not quite so clear cut.

I don't recall ever searching for dev comments limited to that ploy whereas I can assure you I have conducted several searches on the LCU reattachment to air HQ practice. There are many dev posts on the LCU reattachment, all quite negative. I don't recall in doing those searches coming across one on the naval air but I'm quite confident they would not approve of that ploy too.

The reason why the naval ploy is not so clear cut is that it is intended that air units which operate from aircraft carriers be able to undertake their historical resizing. Historically these air units always remained on the aircraft carriers after the resizing (obviously if the carrier were sunk or decommissioned for repairs etc that is a different scenario). What did not occur historically was the 1 day placement onto a carrier of a terrestrial air unit which was expanded to maximum CV air capacity and then immediately withdrawn back to terra firma to conduct terrestrial operations.

It is a weakness of the game engine that the naval ploy is possible. With the current engine you cannot have the historical resizing option for permanent carrier units whilst simultaneously preventing any carrier capable unit which operated exclusively from land, from doing likewise. Attempting to plug the code loophole leads to other problems such as stopping carrier capable units from both operating off carriers and being capable of upskilling to carrier trained status.

I'll give you another game ploy which is not supported by historical praxis even though those who benefit from it will vociferously claim otherwise. Operating off a carrier is a high skill operation which requires constant practice to maintain the skills. In real life, if you are relocated to operate from land for an extended period of time, you will lose those carrier skills. A more robust game engine would therefore result in carrier trained units which are relocated to operate from land bases, losing their carrier trained status and reverting at the very least to the lesser carrier capable status. That would have a dramatic impact on game play and make it much more realistic too. Imagine combining that with no resizing to carrier capacity for dedicated terrestrial air units.

Basically the devs wanted to remove hard coded restrictions and allow flexibility. But flexibility within historical, real world constraints. Unfortunately the game engine, like all game engines, allows players to exploit loopholes. Plugging any loophole always creates another; and that is without taking into account whether the resources were available or best utilised on plugging that loophole at the expense of other coding tasks.

Alfred

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

That is good to know. Thanks![&o] I had people telling me the opposite... In my game with Jocke, we swapped emails on this topic and decided not to use it, but in the mod there are no free air HQ commands to transfer into or at least not many on the Japanese side.

The other Japanese ploy is to expand Naval squadrons, and I really don't like that either.

I could use a few Abrams about now...heck, I will settle for a Pershing or two.[:D]

The expand naval squadrons ploy is not quite so clear cut.

I don't recall ever searching for dev comments limited to that ploy whereas I can assure you I have conducted several searches on the LCU reattachment to air HQ practice. There are many dev posts on the LCU reattachment, all quite negative. I don't recall in doing those searches coming across one on the naval air but I'm quite confident they would not approve of that ploy too.

The reason why the naval ploy is not so clear cut is that it is intended that air units which operate from aircraft carriers be able to undertake their historical resizing. Historically these air units always remained on the aircraft carriers after the resizing (obviously if the carrier were sunk or decommissioned for repairs etc that is a different scenario). What did not occur historically was the 1 day placement onto a carrier of a terrestrial air unit which was expanded to maximum CV air capacity and then immediately withdrawn back to terra firma to conduct terrestrial operations.

It is a weakness of the game engine that the naval ploy is possible. With the current engine you cannot have the historical resizing option for permanent carrier units whilst simultaneously preventing any carrier capable unit which operated exclusively from land, from doing likewise. Attempting to plug the code loophole leads to other problems such as stopping carrier capable units from both operating off carriers and being capable of upskilling to carrier trained status.

I'll give you another game ploy which is not supported by historical praxis even though those who benefit from it will vociferously claim otherwise. Operating off a carrier is a high skill operation which requires constant practice to maintain the skills. In real life, if you are relocated to operate from land for an extended period of time, you will lose those carrier skills. A more robust game engine would therefore result in carrier trained units which are relocated to operate from land bases, losing their carrier trained status and reverting at the very least to the lesser carrier capable status. That would have a dramatic impact on game play and make it much more realistic too. Imagine combining that with no resizing to carrier capacity for dedicated terrestrial air units.

Basically the devs wanted to remove hard coded restrictions and allow flexibility. But flexibility within historical, real world constraints. Unfortunately the game engine, like all game engines, allows players to exploit loopholes. Plugging any loophole always creates another; and that is without taking into account whether the resources were available or best utilised on plugging that loophole at the expense of other coding tasks.

Alfred

Alfred-

In your opinion would it be considered a "Cheat" to fly aircraft off a British Carrier that is due to withdraw? Example: The Indomitable (I believe that is the name of the British Carrier that is due to withdraw in my game in like 3 weeks).

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Alfred]

No.[:)]
 
As I said, it isn't so clear cut.  British carriers tend to arrive without a full complement of air units and many need to have FAA units moved onto the carrier.  This initial topping off can justify doing it in reverse too.
 
In practical game terms it isn't much of an issue because British aircraft pools are not that plentiful nor are British carrier capable aircraft models that good in performance terms.  Plus the unit sizes tend to be on the small side.  So in practical terms retaining them is not really going to boost the Allied performance.  If the game engine supported deskilling the FAA units left behind, I wouldn't have any objections.  But the same is not true of Japanese or American carrier units where the carriers remain active on the map but are hidden but the air wings are thrown into the thick of battle for months at a time.  That did not happen historically.  If an IJN or USN carrier was in theatre and active, it had aircraft on board.
 
Everything comes back to whether players attempt to play within the real world parameters of the era or just want to find any excuse to get a "game" edge to win over their opponent.  For example there are Allied players who justify their decision to load their early 1942 carriers with marine fighter units (even taking off all bomber units using the carriers as mobile flak traps) on the basis that it was done in the war.  Well yes, very later in the war in 1945.  Wasn't done in 1942 or 1943 because doctrine could not accommodate it, there weren't spare USMC units to do it, the logistics weren't in place and so on.  But heck who cares about those real limitations if they can get a gaming edge using doctrine and resources from the future.
 
It is all a bit like the man who goes fishing using dynamite and at the end of the day turns to a fisherman who used a fishing rod and claims to have won because he "caught" so many more fish.  Sure he has a big catch but it was a rather hollow "victory".
 
Alfred

[witpqs]

IIRC, when you withdraw a British carrier with air groups, those groups go into the reinforcement queue and come back. AFAIK they are not meant to be withdrawn with the carriers.

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No.[:)]

As I said, it isn't so clear cut.  British carriers tend to arrive without a full complement of air units and many need to have FAA units moved onto the carrier.  This initial topping off can justify doing it in reverse too.

In practical game terms it isn't much of an issue because British aircraft pools are not that plentiful nor are British carrier capable aircraft models that good in performance terms.  Plus the unit sizes tend to be on the small side.  So in practical terms retaining them is not really going to boost the Allied performance.  If the game engine supported deskilling the FAA units left behind, I wouldn't have any objections.  But the same is not true of Japanese or American carrier units where the carriers remain active on the map but are hidden but the air wings are thrown into the thick of battle for months at a time.  That did not happen historically.  If an IJN or USN carrier was in theatre and active, it had aircraft on board.

Everything comes back to whether players attempt to play within the real world parameters of the era or just want to find any excuse to get a "game" edge to win over their opponent.  For example there are Allied players who justify their decision to load their early 1942 carriers with marine fighter units (even taking off all bomber units using the carriers as mobile flak traps) on the basis that it was done in the war.  Well yes, very later in the war in 1945.  Wasn't done in 1942 or 1943 because doctrine could not accommodate it, there weren't spare USMC units to do it, the logistics weren't in place and so on.  But heck who cares about those real limitations if they can get a gaming edge using doctrine and resources from the future.

It is all a bit like the man who goes fishing using dynamite and at the end of the day turns to a fisherman who used a fishing rod and claims to have won because he "caught" so many more fish.  Sure he has a big catch but it was a rather hollow "victory".

Alfred

Alfred-

Got it.

Your analysis makes sense to me.

Thanks for responding.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Lowpe]

June 30, 1944

Round two at Nagoya...I expect another attack here.

[Lowpe]

Jacks and Franks catch some carrier based sweeps at Shanghai and knock down quite a few. Big air raids over Yokohama, and the 12 cm guns there do good work.

Heavy bombing at Cam Ranh Bay and a few naval strikes sinks the the merchant here and there, and a local minelayer.

[Lowpe]

Allies only deliberate attack today is at Matsuyama which has been reinforced by another Allied infantry division...taken from the east. I probably should try to get another brigade or regiment there.

Nagoya is now the focus of the Allied attacks, getting more Allied units today with more moving there.

Osaka builds their forts back to 2.[8D]