The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[Canoerebel]

I sent this to John yesterday:

"I can tell you what happened.

"Troops in strategic mode will move into a contested hex but will not move out of a contested hex.

"You troops didn't have time to complete the transition into strategic mode before my advance unit arrived. 

"Most of your bigger units (18th Div., etc.) arrived at Rangoon three turns ago.  It would take two or three turns for them to complete the transition into strategic mode.  But on their second turn, my advance unit arrived, preventing them from leaving.  So there's no way any of them could actually leave the hex."

Your idea to tell him about my own recent carrier-upgrade foible is a good one.

[Canoerebel]

5/10/44

A good and productive day though not without some kind of glitch (either me or the computer) in Burma:

1. Allied air missions against Manila's airfield pretty successful.
2. Allied amphibious moves in Philippines underway without mishap, though troop loading will take a day or two more. D-Day at the first target is probably three days away.
3. Allied armies in Burma have fully advanced into Rangoon and Pegu. However, attacks at both places got scrubbed. Probably this was something I did or didn't do but I swear and swear I had units properly set up to attack.
4. Tomorrow, barring user error or AI hijinks, big armies will attack in both cities.

See map for details.

[Canoerebel]

John seems pretty highly frustrated by the game right now, though I feel confident that he'll soldier on. He'll probably do so in bits and spurts until he gets jazzed by a planned ambush or attack or has a sexy new toy (carriers, advanced aircraft) to throw into the fray.

He's really done well in playing since we resumed in October, or whenever it was. He flipped turns at a much higher rate when he was engaged in big things, but that's just human nature. Of late, he's slowed down, partly for real life reasons and partly due to morale. That's understandable. But I give him a lot of credit for trying and working at it despite the hits his navy has taken. (I've felt all along that crippling his navy was the fast way to victory, both on the board and in the mind.)

A tip of the cap to John.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John seems pretty highly frustrated by the game right now, though I feel confident that he'll soldier on.

He is sitting pretty....don't know why he would be frustrated. In May of 44, Tokyo was a smoking ruin in my previous game with Hokkaido totally lost, the Marianas, and Bangkok was falling, my air force in ruins, blah, blah, blah...

Doesn't he get some kind of goofy George in this game? Does he get 4eb, the Rita too? Or is it the Liz?

[Canoerebel]

One reason I feel sanguine about the pace of the game is that we've reached a point where it's possible to judge who was right in evaluating things, especially in the darks days of the Sumatra debacle.

At that time, some readers (probably mostly followers of John's AAR) contended that Sumatra was a crippling blow to the Allied war effort. I contended that no matter what happened, the Allies were in great shape. I made that claim just before we took the two-year sabbatical in September 2013. The claim was met with howls of derision from certain folks.

I was right. Mostly that's because I knew my opponent. Sumatra wasn't guaranteed to turn out so well, but it did. And I was confident that would be the case.

I wouldn't have been as confident if I hadn't known my opponent or if I was playing an opponent who had a record of tough defense in depth. Sumatra could've been - and probably should've been - a debacle. But John got distracted by the vortex and turned Sumatra into an affair that paid off handsomely for the Allies. (At the same time, Sumatra was very nearly a victory by itself - more fighters or perhaps another 200k supply would've made the difference - as it was, the Allies held out for eight months.)

Some ardent John supports made some pretty rough comments during the course of the game. I recall one, in particular, as the Marshalls campaign was winding down. I had just shifted everything from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, managed the very successful Aleutians campaign and was doing very well in the Marshalls campaign. Both of those involved the loss of next to no ships. But, one day, Japanese aircraft sank CA Portland. A reader of John's AAR showed up in mine for the first and only time and wrote, "You seem to be off your game."

I was like, "What? Everything's going incredibly well. Where are you coming from."

Readers of John's AAR are privy to his successes and his vision of things, so they get a skewed understanding of the game.

John plays incredibly aggressively and hard. He gets away with that in '41 and '42 when he has overwhelming numbers. But he's burning the candle at both ends, expending precious resources far, far faster than he can afford to do so. His navy, in this game, is the prime example. He used it so often and so hard that it evaporated. Had one or the other of us walked away from the game in June '43, he wouldn't have paid for his style of play. But by '44 he's bankrupt and it's apparent to everyone. You can't play at a non-sustainable rate if you're in for the long haul.

The game isn't over. I can and will continue to make mistakes. Luck will become fickle. John gets lots of sexy aircraft. His fighters are already tough on my 4EB. So there's a great deal of game to be played yet.

But the Allies are indeed in the desired position to prosecute the war efficiently as we reach the summer of '44.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

He is sitting pretty....don't know why he would be frustrated. In May of 44, Tokyo was a smoking ruin in my previous game with Hokkaido totally lost, the Marianas, and Bangkok was falling, my air force in ruins, blah, blah, blah...

Doesn't he get some kind of goofy George in this game? Does he get 4eb, the Rita too? Or is it the Liz?

John thinks he should be able to stand toe-to-toe with the Allies in mid '44 (and, for all I know, he thinks he ought to be able to do so in '45). He thinks he ought to be able to prevail in the ground war in Burma right now. So he didn't retreat and got chewed alive. He thinks Burma was a permanent part of the Empire and its a kick to his gut to lose it.

The same thing with every other place on the map.

He just doesn't grasp the concept of the phased, fighting withdrawal. The Japanese player has to know how and when to retire. General Lee, General Longstreet and General Johnston would know. General Hood wouldn't.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I ran the same idea through my head and came to the same conclusions.

I've made similar miscalculations in the game, most recently not understanding that my carriers couldn't upgrade at the port I had selected. That little miscalculation played a big part in what happened at Celebes (my carriers ended up going much further away and thus couldn't respond to the emergency as I had originally envisioned).

That was just one of many misunderstandings/miscalculations I've made. I still think the biggest two were: a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Allied fighter replacement rates were (that played a big role in Sumatra) and granting John the "no strat bombing until 1944" house rule.

Sometimes I cut some slack. But do overs are done when a bug causes some sort of disaster not to correct bad game play. Unless, you both have a habit of doing this. Come on now, you two have both got a decade of playing experience behind you. There is not much excuse for missing this one though. You can't strat move out of a shared hex. We all know that.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I ran the same idea through my head and came to the same conclusions.

I've made similar miscalculations in the game, most recently not understanding that my carriers couldn't upgrade at the port I had selected. That little miscalculation played a big part in what happened at Celebes (my carriers ended up going much further away and thus couldn't respond to the emergency as I had originally envisioned).

That was just one of many misunderstandings/miscalculations I've made. I still think the biggest two were: a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Allied fighter replacement rates were (that played a big role in Sumatra) and granting John the "no strat bombing until 1944" house rule.

Sometimes I cut some slack. But do overs are done when a bug causes some sort of disaster not to correct bad game play. Unless, you both have a habit of doing this. Come on now, you two have both got a decade of playing experience behind you. There is not much excuse for missing this one though. You can't strat move out of a shared hex. We all know that.

I didnt knew that to be honest.

[Lowpe]

I like the General Hood comparison. [&o] But Lee was awfully aggressive on the defense, and I don't think the comparison holds. And if that is Sidney Albert, I don't think that comparison holds either but is better than Lee. Longstreet definitely holds though. Ole Pete.

[Canoerebel]

Well, I meant Joe Johnson but misspelled his last name.

Lee could be aggressive on defense, but he also knew when and how to retreat, as he showed in '64.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I ran the same idea through my head and came to the same conclusions.

I've made similar miscalculations in the game, most recently not understanding that my carriers couldn't upgrade at the port I had selected. That little miscalculation played a big part in what happened at Celebes (my carriers ended up going much further away and thus couldn't respond to the emergency as I had originally envisioned).

That was just one of many misunderstandings/miscalculations I've made. I still think the biggest two were: a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Allied fighter replacement rates were (that played a big role in Sumatra) and granting John the "no strat bombing until 1944" house rule.

Sometimes I cut some slack. But do overs are done when a bug causes some sort of disaster not to correct bad game play. Unless, you both have a habit of doing this. Come on now, you two have both got a decade of playing experience behind you. There is not much excuse for missing this one though. You can't strat move out of a shared hex. We all know that.

I didnt knew that to be honest.

I trashed some Allied divisions on Java because of that rule...and it took the Allies by complete surprise. In fact we put the game on hold for awhile to figure out if it was a a bug or not.

I went back to page 196 or so; was curious to see what I said at the end of the Sumatra campaign, but there it was the: the Mini KB doing a Jeb Stuart circling routine!

Thanks so much for the AAR -- what absolutely great times!

[JohnDillworth]

Lee could be aggressive on defense, but he also knew when and how to retreat, as he showed in '64.

(in reply to Lowpe)

And still the Union rolled up the lines at will in April 1865. A battle of logistics and a battle of industry and the Union just had more, hopeless: Sutherland Station, Namozine Church, Amelia Springs, Sayler's Creek, Rice's Station, High Bridge...well, you know the rest

[DW]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I like the General Hood comparison. [&o] But Lee was awfully aggressive on the defense, and I don't think the comparison holds. And if that is Sidney Albert, I don't think that comparison holds either but is better than Lee. Longstreet definitely holds though. Ole Pete.

Unless the object is a Civil War comparison, I'd go with Kesselring's Italian campaign.

He always fought as far south as safety permitted, reacted competently when faced with surprises and always managed to get his forces north in tolerably good order when the time came.

That campaign is almost a textbook example of trading ground for time and making the enemy pay a dear price as he did it.

[DW]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John thinks he should be able to stand toe-to-toe with the Allies in mid '44 (and, for all I know, he thinks he ought to be able to do so in '45).

This was John's wet dream scenario, so to speak.

With all the extra late war toys he gifted himself, I wouldn't be at all surprised that he thought he could go toe to toe with the allies until very late in the war.

And, to be fair, had he gotten in one good battle with your carriers earlier in the war and traded at a rate of something like three to two in his favor, he probably would have been able to do so.

[Canoerebel]

5/11/44

Burma: The Allies achieve strong attacks (4:1 and 3:1) at Rangoon and Pegu, dropping forts a notch at each without actually taking the bases. They'll fall soon.

Fun House: Amphibs are still loading, but I think all will be at sea with Death Star by tomorrow. D-Day at Puerto Princesa should be in three days. I don't think KB will be a factor, but I'm wondering about those BBs last seen in the Bay of Bengal weeks ago.

See map for details.

[Lowpe]

You should tell us what you think some of those IJN task forces are. What is at Miri?

Won't Japan bomb your Vietnam listening post?

[BBfanboy]

I hope you are moving DS around while waiting for the amphibs. John will be sending subs at you since he got lucky with one attack on a CV a few turns ago. The shallow water hexes might be safer than the current location.

[Bif1961]

Since you are comparing a land locked campaign to a naval campaign where you can strike anywhere at anytime it is apple and oranges.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

Since you are comparing a land locked campaign to a naval campaign where you can strike anywhere at anytime it is apple and oranges.

[&:]
Who is doing the comparing? Me (whose post you replied to) or Canoerebel? Or ??
What is the gist of the comparison you are dismissing?

[Canoerebel]

I think Bif might've been referring to DW's "Kesselring withdrawal in Italy" analogy.

If I'm right, I disagree with Bif. DW's comparison was a valid one. It's incumbent upon a Japanese player to know how and when to withdraw - a phased withdrawal like Kesselring's, DW suggested.

I understand what Bif means: that Kesselring's circumstances differed from the Japanese Emporer's, but there are broader truths that apply to both.