Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[John 3rd]

The P-51s were bagged over China by a batch of Franks. I put them at 30,000 (on a whim) and they plastered the Mustangs on the dive starting the fight.

[John 3rd]

December 11, 1944

The 1.0x10^6 stays in its exact same spot and hits Nagasaki again. This time the Allied Force runs into twice the number of fighters that they did the previous day.

Sweeps/Strikes
252 F vs 10 F4U
232 F vs 10 F4U
212 F vs 310 F4U--34 F6F Escorting 58 Avengers: WOW!
156 F vs. 37 B-24
120 F vs. 36 B-24
103 F vs 8 B-24
79 F vs 78 F6F

Here are the results. Nearly all of those Ops losses came from the Fall of Changsha today where 38 Fighter Airframes were lost before I could finish getting them out. The losses were nearly 1-1 in the air.

I really hope he comes in again tomorrow. Fly in more Fighters and set a low-level CAP Trap for the Allies. If he hits again tomorrow then we will release the Kamikaze and other units being held back and try to pierce a tired set of Fighter Pilots...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


The difference here is that I don't believe in auto-victory. When I start I plan to go to the end...

CR believes in it. It's the only way an Allied player can win.

Not a fan of it as I think it causes players to play the game and not the simulation. I do think that if the Allies make it then they have probably done a petty good job of beating Japan. If Japan makes it then I think the Japanese player has a pretty weak-assed opponent. [:D] I really don't worry about it. I will know in the end if I have lost or won.

[Chickenboy]

Where (and why) are you still flying the Ki-44-IIa and A6M4-J, John?

Re: air losses: Great! Any exchange of >1:2 for you pushes autovictory further and further back. Those B-24Js, PB4Y-1 and F-7As (42 total) cost him double VPs.

Plus, losing 7 F-7A liberators in one day? Ouch!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.

Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? [:'(]) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.

[AcePylut]

IF you both enjoyed the match and had fun doing so - does "winning the military" war matter? Does "winning the VP count" matter?

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Not a fan of it as I think it causes players to play the game and not the simulation.

Uhm...I-R-Confused. For years everyone has been saying this is a game, not a simulation [&:]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.

Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? [:'(]) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.

Well, as long as we are not playing for money. I don't really care if he thinks he won or lost. [;)] Actually Viberpol is my long term opponent and in our last campaign he surrendered the day of the Russian activation. He has ships and aircraft left but his supply and fuel pools were drained. He congratulated me on my win. I told him it was a draw because I really did not do anything more than the Allies actually pulled off. He was beat but I did not have any boots on the ground in the HI. Draw in my book.

[John 3rd]

Haven't seen many Posts by Viberpol. Is he still around?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.

Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? [:'(]) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.

Well, as long as we are not playing for money. I don't really care if he thinks he won or lost. [;)] Actually Viberpol is my long term opponent and in our last campaign he surrendered the day of the Russian activation. He has ships and aircraft left but his supply and fuel pools were drained. He congratulated me on my win. I told him it was a draw because I really did not do anything more than the Allies actually pulled off. He was beat but I did not have any boots on the ground in the HI. Draw in my book.

I don't get this argument. If you did what the Allies did, you won because they won. Unconditional surrender (with one condition, but who's quibbling?). If that isn't winning, what is? They never landed on the HI, so you shouldn't need to either, if it's a sim.

The VP system and the victory conditions allow the Allies to win in other ways than having to channel everything toward the HI. This to me is a good thing for longevity of the game.

And if it IS a sim, as you say, then ignoring the core design can lead to strange things, such as NAGASAKI BEING BOMBED (!!!!), while Japan wastes ships and men plinking at Liberty ships down by Oz. In any reading of the Japanese Empire and culture would this have happened? Such an assault on national honor would have resulted in every single platform and man who could get home, coming home. The design encourages that, if it's respected. When four Liberty ships are 40 VP, and strat bombing can reap thousands in one night, the Japan player ought not to be down by Oz doing anything, sim or game.

Being half-pregnant--liking the plinking for 40 VPs because it's a rush to sink something, while still "not playing for an auto-vic"--can lead to bad games. The two opponents are playing different games in fact. The design genius of GG's system is Japan doesn't have to win to win. They just have to not lose. The Allies can't do better than a draw if they don't achieve auto-vic, and they have a timetable than makes pushing and risking mandatory. For an endeavor that takes four years or more that's pretty exciting.

Right now, in this game, I feel as if CR and John are playing two different games. Lowpe has posted extensively about how Japan can have a yabba-dabba-do time trying to stymie the Allied timetable, and win. I've learned from reading his posts, as I haven't been in an end-game for about five real time years. Even though Japan gets crushed every day, the design, if it is respected, can provide excellent gaming up to the last day.

[HansBolter]

Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.

[John 3rd]

December 12, 1944

The thoughts of opening up the bombers in Japan against the American 1.0x10^6 are smashed today when I do a fighter tally. The enemy targets Nagasaki again today to very little effect. There will be more on that later.

On the attacks there were 451 Naval Fighters accounted for. HQ moved a 36 plane Judy Kamikaze Group to Moppo to check the Allied CAP. Sure enough, they fly and attack. What they encounter staggers the High Command. They DBs run into 1,353 Fighters ON CAP! This makes a total of 1804 Fighters involved in attack and defense. We're not even talking about how many have the day off.

Holy CRAP!

[John 3rd]

December 12, 1944

"Gentlemen: The target for today is NAGASAKI. For the previous two days we have been weakening this target and today is MAXIMUM effort. The army pilots, in their fancy P-47 and P-51s, are even joining us at the party. Good Luck!"

The fight over Nagasaki and ground targets:

188 F vs 23 F4U
160 F vs 12 F4U
142 F vs 14 F4U
106 F vs 358 F and 117 Avengers Heavy Industry--14 Hits
62 F vs 25 F4U
28 F vs 19 F4U
9 F vs 3 B-24
5 F vs 45 P-47, 40 B-24 Light Industry--2 Hits
29 P-47, 10 P-38, 28 B-24 Light Industry--1 Hit
10 B-24
16 P-51
28 P-51

All this for 14 HI and 3 LI. Losses are posted below. They are serious but pilot losses are not too bad. Take out the Judy 'probe' and we're at 2:3 for fighters.

Rotate out--Rotate in.

[John 3rd]

CAP 50% Range-0

Franks 9,000FT
Tony 7,000Ft
All Others 5,000Ft

Suggestions?

[John 3rd]

December 12, 1944

On the POSITIVE SIDE!

I-206 makes THREE separate attacks and SINKS THREE LSTs near Noumea! Down goes LST-910, LST-778, and LST-885.

A plaintive BANZAI can be heard from the South Pacific...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.

In the game space I think a lot depends on what is meant by "sim." A game like Kerbal Space Program, where you design and fly spacecraft from a 3rd-person POV, is a sim. We don't conn USS Fletcher. I don't know where the boundaries of the word lie. This is at least a "model" of the PTO. That has wiggle-room too.

But it's without question a "game." There is a score, and the score leads to a winner and a loser. Zero sum.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Holy CRAP!

I left one quote. [:)]

It's certainly a hill to climb. So you need all your pieces, and you need to use them relentlessly, without worrying so much about your losses. Care about mission kills, not sinkings.

As an AFB, the one thing I really hate in the late game is kamis. They do tremendous damage when they hit, and the ship they hit is most likely out of the war for the duration. We never know how many Japan has, what type, and what altitude they will come in on. You need a lot more of them on the axis you know his carriers live in. Any airframe, no matter how old, is useful. The AI, when it uses kamis, flies Willows at times. (!!) They die, but they eat up AA and CAP passes.

Every sub you've got should be west of the HI somewhere. DCs run out. You might get lucky. Again, think mission kill.

You've let his cluster of CVs psych you out for many months. At this point I recall a saying my dad brought home from Korea, courtesy of a USMC gunny: "They can kill you, but they can't eat you." Things could be worse. You know exactly where his strength is. Attack it. Don't dink. Swing for the fences.

[John 3rd]

Well said and VERY true Mr. Moose!

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.

In the game space I think a lot depends on what is meant by "sim." A game like Kerbal Space Program, where you design and fly spacecraft from a 3rd-person POV, is a sim. We don't conn USS Fletcher. I don't know where the boundaries of the word lie. This is at least a "model" of the PTO. That has wiggle-room too.

But it's without question a "game." There is a score, and the score leads to a winner and a loser. Zero sum.

You reminded me of the Great Naval Battles Series. THAT had some serious SIM angles to it.

[jwolf]

That Death Star CAP is ... impressive. [X(] It's interesting to see the air battles over Nagasaki as the stakes are implicitly higher right on your home turf.