Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I loved those games, especially the Guadal Canal one. Kind of combined operational and tactical.
You got to organize TFs to resupply and fight for the island and then as you zoomed in you could literally see the strike package coming for your ship resolve into individual planes and then could go to any station on the various ships while the battle unfolded.

[John 3rd]

I still have those games and wish I could get them to run on my 'modern' PC...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: 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!

But how many carriers did they sink? You're leaving out important details, John! [:@]




[;)]

[Chickenboy]

Your IJAAF fighters are shouldering most of this burden. Make it worthwhile by joining with the IJNAF. I agree that you've also got to go big or go home WRT the kamikazes one of these days. Dinking and dunking with 18 here and 36 there won't do you any good. If you're going to use them, use THEM. Use them *all*. You should have thousands of them ready to go by now. Don't let your fighters shoulder the burden until they break. The KB is going to have to factor in here too if you want to improve the odds of anything striking home.

Of course, the best time to strike en masse was many months ago. There were ample opportunities in the enemy's exploitation of the Philippines, then Formosa, then South China then East China. You've demurred, which is fine, but you've also let slip some meaningful opportunities to strike a significant blow to the enemy fleet and his timetable.

With all that said, a 2:3 ratio this late in the war is good. I doubt that you can maintain this ratio indefinitely though.

Also, in fairness, if you 'cancel out' the Judy suicide probe, then you probably need to 'cancel out' the Avenger losses in your calculus. That puts you at 66:124 or 1:1.87. Just sayin'.

[John 3rd]

Well...there goes Chickenboy ruining all my hopes and dashing them against the rock of reality...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Well...there goes Chickenboy ruining all my hopes and dashing them against the rock of reality...

Pfft...hope is overrated. [:'(]

As an aside, I thought about your esteemed opponent today. I had a can of boiled green peanuts that I'd been meaning to heat up and eat. [:)]

[Lowpe]

Being illustrated right now is one dimensional attack and defense.

There is no night bombing of the runway. There is no daytime bombing of the runway. There is no shore bombardment. There is no targeted strategic bombing runs against Japanese fighters and engines. It seems to me there is no massed 600 bomber runs. There is no sweeps to pick off CAP bleed. I could go on and on, but it is almost as if the Allies want to extend the war.

On Japanese side...the Allies are getting away with everything on the cheap. With the KB away in the SRA,..fighter defense of Honshu is significantly weakened.

Where are the 2 and 3 ship destroyer raids into the KB, the one way MTB raids, the CAP Traps, the high altitude fighter sweeps of the deathstar (a splinter of a bombing/kamikaze group escorted by 2-300 Franks). The sub rush, the night torpedo bombing runs, the air attacks designed to hit around the deathstar, the sweeps of Chinese bases, etc, etc., etc..there are so, so many counter strategies to be used here.


Without the KB's fighter squadrons, the advantage here is to the Allies and with the absolute impotence of the IJN....

Since this mod greatly increases the CV strength of Japan, one side effect, is that it most likely greatly increases the potential fighter strength of Japan, but we haven't really seen that.

And finally, something John seems to have forgotten, is that you see your plane losses/damaged status accurately, however the Allies are most likely losing at least 30% less due to fog of war.

I said earlier I thought John needed to pickup his air game over Honshu, I will expand that to John needs to think of how to counter a suddenly active Deathstar. Tons of things to do, but to let them sit off Honshu is not one of them.

Re-reading this, it seems to me I might have come across as too critical...but John's recent brush with the deathstarCAP...I think he is drawing the wrong conclusions. Also, it is very easy for me to look at all of Japan's strength, and wish I had 10% of it in my end games.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



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.

No, I have to disagree. With the assets the Allies eventually get (I know this mod is different) then total victory is a foregone conclusion given equal opponents. Japan is not going to end up with a Pacific empire here. In my eye a Allied victory has to surpass what the Allied pulled off. Either but doing more or doing the historical much earlier. To repeat the historical outcome is not a hard task for a skilled Allied player. Likewise if I annihilate Japan and lose 20 fleet carriers in doing so-I am pretty sure that I have lost. One thing that I am positive of is that there is just no way VP figures for win and lost could have been effectively play tested in a game of this scope. How many playtest campaigns could have possibly gone the distance? You would have had to have an infinite number of monkeys to pull that one off.[:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

No, I have to disagree. With the assets the Allies eventually get (I know this mod is different) then total victory is a foregone conclusion given equal opponents. Japan is not going to end up with a Pacific empire here. In my eye a Allied victory has to surpass what the Allied pulled off. Either but doing more or doing the historical much earlier. To repeat the historical outcome is not a hard task for a skilled Allied player. Likewise if I annihilate Japan and lose 20 fleet carriers in doing so-I am pretty sure that I have lost. One thing that I am positive of is that there is just no way VP figures for win and lost could have been effectively play tested in a game of this scope. How many playtest campaigns could have possibly gone the distance? You would have had to have an infinite number of monkeys to pull that one off.[:D]

These things always seem to get buried in AARs . . .

While we won't agree, I just wanted to say that your comment is predicated on a critical phrase: "total victory is a foregone conclusion given equal opponents."

My impression is you have always played the same opponent in PBEM. At least nearly always. I have played four Japan opponents of widely varying ability and experience. From my POV I have never played someone of my exact ability. And each took radically different approaches to playing Japan. VPs are how I measured how I was doing as I figured out what they were about.

VPs and auto-vic are objective. To me there's no "cost" to using them versus a subjective "I feel I won", especially if my opponent, after 4-5 years, says, "No, I won." I've never understood the objection to watching the score from players who would never golf, watch baseball, or enjoy the Olympics without an objective winner and loser. Even if money is not involved.

[John 3rd]

Had a very busy weekend with the stores (meaning staffs) being STUPID! Worked 2-11pm on Friday, 7a-4p AND 6-9p on Saturday, had church in the morning and evening and then found that one of the stores tried to close an hour early today. Am rather tired and wanting a day off...

[John 3rd]

December 13, 1944

For three days the American juggernaut has been hitting Nagasaki. Today is no different except they run into the strongest Japanese CAP yet as nearly 300 Fighters wait for the attacks.

287 F vs 30 F4U
261 F vs 35 F4U
243 F vs 30 F4U
205 F vs 26 F6F
175 F vs. 23 F4U
144 F vs. 36 F4U
113 F vs. 21 F4U
83 F vs. 15 F4U
68 F vs. 9 F4U
53 F vs. 14 F4U
25 F vs. 14 F4U
13 F vs. 16 F4U
2 F vs. 17 F4U
2 F vs. 103 F and 341 Avengers
2 F vs. 42 B-29

The Avengers go after anything and everything--LI, HI, Factories--ENG and Aircraft. The B-29 hit Manpower.

No truly appreciable damage sustained.

What were losses like? NEXT Posting!

[John 3rd]

December 13, 1944

Here are the losses. I checked and saw that I lost just 52 pilots:

[John 3rd]

Over 50 B-24 hit Keijo and did a total of 1 LI in damage!

My newly deployed SS continue to score with an LST and LCM sunk today.

He has a bunch of small craft trying to catch convoys between Japan and Korea. Move TB and DB, set Alt to 1,000Ft and range 1. Should be interesting to watch.

[John 3rd]

Purposefully antagonized my opponent by opening my note saying "I could do this for days and days." See what that provokes...

[John 3rd]

December 14, 1944

Peripheral strategy or not, my SS are scoring again as I-19 sinks another LST near Flinders Isle. This makes 5 LST sunk in three days. Two of them were carrying troops. No SS damaged in return. NICE!

[John 3rd]

December 14, 1944

Dan and I had similar ideas this turn. I decided to give my Fighters a break and rest ALL of them at Nagasaki. This was calculated since he hasn't even tried to hit the AFs whatsoever and his bombers have done so little damage.

The Allies do attack Nagasaki this day but it is a night attack by 19 B-29s. They are met by 29 NF and get roughly handled--as normal--by NF, AA, and Balloons. Things should get more interesting as four more heavy AA units arrive here and begin to set-up.

To try and throw the Allies off, I shift from low CAP to HIGH CAP at 33-35,000 Feet. Hope to surprise the Sweepers for a day!

All this action occurred over China--Losses for today:

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

December 14, 1944

Peripheral strategy or not, my SS are scoring again as I-19 sinks another LST near Flinders Isle. This makes 5 LST sunk in three days. Two of them were carrying troops. No SS damaged in return. NICE!

John, as far as you can tell, were these TFs escorted? If he's sailing unescorted troop TFs around...[:-]

[Lowpe]

How does it look on the victory point tally? Total ratio, and what your are losing or gaining each day?

since you don't use tracker, I would create a very simple spreadsheet and track VP Ratio changes per day. Why, so you can get a picture of how you are slowing the Allies down, or not.

I also would track supply.

It can't be your sole guide...but it will give you some insight.

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it, and an un-managed Japan falls fast.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

December 14, 1944

Peripheral strategy or not, my SS are scoring again as I-19 sinks another LST near Flinders Isle. This makes 5 LST sunk in three days. Two of them were carrying troops. No SS damaged in return. NICE!

John, as far as you can tell, were these TFs escorted? If he's sailing unescorted troop TFs around...[:-]

All unescorted...

LOVE IT!
[;)]

[Capt. Harlock]

December 13, 1944

Here are the losses. I checked and saw that I lost just 52 pilots:

Whoa. That may have set the record for the largest one-day loss of Corsairs! [&o]