THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.

Hans-


As you have noticed and so indicated the Japanese aircraft totals and number and type of Japanese carriers are shown as intelligence indicates and of course subject to FOW.

The totals for the Allied carriers are accurate. Prior to the Invasion Fleet leaving the vicinity of Formosa, I flew off approximately 200 fighters and approximately 200 bombers to Pescadores and Takao.

I am using the replenishment carriers as fighting aircraft. As I have mentioned a few times but you may have forgotten, I first loaded as many carrier capable fighters as the 25 carriers could hold. The remaining aircraft space on the carriers was filled with Dauntless and Avenger. I wanted as many fighters as possible to provide CAP and LRCAP for the carriers, Invasion Fleet, and the three objectives of Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao.

Presently, some of the Allied carriers do not have any aircraft on them.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Thanks for the reminder of how you chose to structure things. I presume after having used at least some of your carriers as aircraft shuttles you won't be seeking a carrier engagement.

I would have done things a bit differently.

I would have massed all of my AKVs for aircraft shuttle purposes as they allow squadrons to land in ready to fly condition the way a CV shuttle would (they just have to dock to be able to unload unlike a CV shuttle that allows a fly off).

I also would have maintained some CVEs as replenishments extending the station keeping ability of the combat CVs and ensuring a better match up in a CV on CV fight.

Not a criticism of your approach, just an offer of a different approach that you might consider if choosing to go deep in another game.

Hans-


At times, I have been given advice that I have already considered.

However, on numerous occasions I have been given advice that I either wasn't aware of or have been negligent in considering.

Your comments and advice, as well as all of the comments and advice from The War College members is always looked forward to receiving and I am appreciative of the advice provided to me. Without the sage help that has been provided to me by The War College members many of the missions I have engaged would not have turned out as well as they have. Further, without the help of The War College the Allies would surely be in a worse, no doubt much worse position at this stage of the war than the position they presently enjoy.

Thank you, Hans.

Your pal,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo
Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Sauternes is an area (appellation), where you have different vineyards (crus), of different qualities and prices. For a given year, prices can range from a few euros to several hundreds.

Now, if it was a 100 on Parker, what you had is an Yquem 2001. This is the very best (the only 1er cru classé, the highest notch in the classification). It should fetch around 700€ these days. Other years, some older, would be cheaper. 200€ is typical.

Then, there are other crus, notably 1er crus, which are much less expensive, and still well past 95 in the Parker.

Francois

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Per my son, a Product Consultant at one of the local liquor marts:

It isn't the vintage of the wine so much as the age of the vines it is grown on. The most prized wines are from old-growth vines (I think because the roots go down deeper and get more consistent water and minerals). Then there is the type of barrel it is aged in. Virgin (new) French Oak barrels apparently cost thousands of dollars (not much oak timber left in France) so the wine is priced up accordingly. The various regions and even individual vineyards in France have unique characteristics that make each wine a bit different too, so you need a Master's degree to decipher the descriptions on the bottle!

In the end, it only matters what you enjoy. At my age my taste buds are getting lazy so I am hard-pressed to distinguish subtle difference in flavour - but I can distinguish between a CDN$11 bottle and a good CDN$25 bottle. For a nice red wine, my son put me onto "Conundrum", an award-winning US product that could command a higher price but the makers had promised to keep the price at USD$20 before they put it on market and kept their promise after it won the awards! [:)]

[CaptHaggard]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo
Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Sauternes is an area (appellation), where you have different vineyards (crus), of different qualities and prices. For a given year, prices can range from a few euros to several hundreds.

Now, if it was a 100 on Parker, what you had is an Yquem 2001. This is the very best (the only 1er cru classé, the highest notch in the classification). It should fetch around 700€ these days. Other years, some older, would be cheaper. 200€ is typical.

Then, there are other crus, notably 1er crus, which are much less expensive, and still well past 95 in the Parker.

Francois

*Ding ding!* Yep, Yquem is the one indeed. Thanks, fcharton! I was about to go rummage about in my recyclable bin for the bottle, which is shameful, but my label memory is worse than my palette memory, and that ain't great.

My friend was telling us how they individually pick the grapes, not just hand-pick clusters (like in his and all vineyards that I know of). He knows the dude that owns the local upscale wine shop, which specializes in carrying high-end non-Sonoma/Napa vintages. Therefore, he might have paid less than list price.

It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).

[CaptHaggard]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Ok - some new advice ... about hangovers!

Sugar, alcohol and salt (most party food and beverage) suck up the water from your body and cause you to expel it. When I am at a party (such as this Sunday's Grey Cup) I do my drinking of alcohol up front and switch to water about half way through.

After returning from the party I drink lots of water before going to bed - might mean a trip to the bathroom during the night but at my age I do that anyway![:D]
Almost never get a hangover or the queasy stomach that comes with dehydration of the mucous lining. [:)]

Ah. I had learned at one time that the reason "hair of the dog" worked, at least to a limited extent (i.e., relief), is that it takes hours for water to circulate through the stricken brain, whereas a morning beer—for example—carries water content quite quickly to the head due to the alcohol. So even if the preceding is some of my ancient witchdoctor advice, the water given time through the night to circulate sounds like a reasonable prescription—

[CaptHaggard]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry

Thank you, Rio.

Re "cheap"—what he meant was I draw a much tighter purse-string when it comes to high-end wines. He was joking but he is right.

For years I thought a carefully chosen vintage below $25 could equal the high-end stuff, and sometimes it does. But my belief was, in the main, wishful thinking. Now my typical bottle exceeds $25 by a good margin, but I do not want to know about the next rung up, I don't want to fork over hundreds for a bottle of wine. At what price-point the principle begins or ends, I don't know, but I'm happy with my "OK but not great" cellar, and that's that.

So yeah, in this crowd, regarding wine, I am cheap. Proudly.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry

Thank you, Rio.

Re "cheap"—what he meant was I draw a much tighter purse-string when it comes to high-end wines. He was joking but he is right.

For years I thought a carefully chosen vintage below $25 could equal the high-end stuff, and sometimes it does. But my belief was, in the main, wishful thinking. Now my typical bottle exceeds $25 by a good margin, but I do not want to know about the next rung up, I don't want to fork over hundreds for a bottle of wine. At what price-point the principle begins or ends, I don't know, but I'm happy with my "OK but not great" cellar, and that's that.

So yeah, in this crowd, regarding wine, I am cheap. Proudly.

It sounds like you and I are similar in our tastes, and I completely agree that the average guy should not blow hundreds of dollars on a brief dalliance with the taste of the wine. I top out around $60CDN for a nice Amarone Valpolicela or Cheateâu Neuf de Pape.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard
It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).

I never drank Yquem, but I have heard one must try it with roasted chicken (and curries).

With foie gras, and especially sauteed foie, I would go for something less sweet. Too much sugar in the wine will dominate the taste of the food. If you want something sweet, a moelleux (semi dry), Alsace pinot gris or Vouvray. But some dry, southern wines (Condrieu, some spanish whites) would be great. Personally, I like reds, médocs, a bit old so that they are not too tannic.

I agree with you about price tags. Whereas is it often worth going the extra dollar to get premium vintages (premier crus, better producers or makes), some big names and years have just become collectibles. I seldom put more than 30€ for a bottle I will keep, and more than 60 in a liquor store, for something to be drunk right now.

Francois

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard
It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).

I never drank Yquem, but I have heard one must try it with roasted chicken (and curries).

With foie gras, and especially sauteed foie, I would go for something less sweet. Too much sugar in the wine will dominate the taste of the food. If you want something sweet, a moelleux (semi dry), Alsace pinot gris or Vouvray. But some dry, southern wines (Condrieu, some spanish whites) would be great. Personally, I like reds, médocs, a bit old so that they are not too tannic.

I agree with you about price tags. Whereas is it often worth going the extra dollar to get premium vintages (premier crus, better producers or makes), some big names and years have just become collectibles. I seldom put more than 30€ for a bottle I will keep, and more than 60 in a liquor store, for something to be drunk right now.

Francois

When my daughter and her husband and my son visited Paris, they were amazed at how good the wines were for very little money compared to over here in Canada! You must be getting very good wines indeed for 60 Euros!

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

[center]After Action Report

October 5, 1943[/center]


Highlight for Today

1.) Japanese Carrier Aircraft attack the Allied Invasion Fleet and take a beating.

2.) The grand tally for aircraft and ships losses for today is as follows:

-6 Japanese ships are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CL on fire, 1 CL lightly damaged, and 1 DD with heavy fires.
-11 Allied ships are sunk and 3 are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CVE on fire and 2 DDs sunk.

-155 Japanese aircraft destroyed and 9 damaged.
-6 Allied aircraft destroyed


Synopsis of Combat Action for Today


1.) The Marianas Islands

Japanese Losses

5 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
2 Destroyed (N1K1-J George).

CL Noshiro: 2 shell hits.
CL Oyodo: 2 shell hits; 1 torpedo hit; on fire
DD Kosugiri: 8 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Uji: 2 shell hits.
E Tsuga: 2 shell hits; on fire.
E Kiji: 3 shell hits; on fire.

Allied Losses

5 destroyed (F4U-1 Corsair).

DD Nepal: Sunk.
DD Racehorse: Sunk.
AM Sheldrake: Sunk.
SC PC-781: 1 shell hit.
PC Vigilant: Sunk.
PC Jackson: Sunk.
YMS 244: Sunk.
YMS 287: Sunk.
YMS 288: Sunk.
YMS 290: Sunk.


2.) The Philippine Sea near Daito Shoto.

Japanese Losses

16 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).
59 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
73 destroyed 9 damaged (D4Y3 Judy).

No Japanese ship losses.

Allied Losses

1 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

CVE Altamaha: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
SS Bluefish: 2 hits.
CM Gouden Leeuw: Sunk.
xAK William Windom: Sunk.
xAK Steel Worked: Sunk.


3.) Japanese bomb Chungking. Same old story; minimal casualties, manpower hits, and hundreds of thousands of fires.


4.) Japanese bomb 94th Chinese Corps near Chungking.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

93 Chinese casualties.


5.) Japanese bomb 92nd Chinese Corps near Shaoyang.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

77 Chinese casualties.


6.) Japanese deliberate attack near Chunking.

Japanese Losses

5,231 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

10,142 Allied casualties.
Chinese retreat toward Chickiang.


7.) Allies shock attack Taichu.

Japanese Losses

272 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

790 Allied casualties.


Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for October 5, 1943.

Best Regards,

-Terry

So it sounds like you had a sync bug. Your opponent has been posting and asking about the two different versions of the past turn.

It can be frustrating as an Allied player to watch a replay and then have a different result than what you see. I always request the combatreport from the Japanese player as theirs is the "correct" information.

This is something we all face using a slightly antiquated game engine, but isn't a game breaker and can be reduced by making sure your installations and upgrades are the same.

[PaxMondo]

Also by having the IJ player always send his Combat Report as it is always accurate. That way you know the results irrespective of what your replay shows. If your replay does not agree, then you simply disregard the replay.

Someone else pointed out that in +650 turns it likely had happened to you several times but, but escaped notice as the turn wasn't so important.

[Rio Bravo]

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

fcharton, BBfanboy, and Captain Haggard-


The only thing I know about wine is that in high school I preferred a bottle of Espanada over beer. The taste sucked but the wine did it's job getting me screwed up as was my goal when with my pals getting hammered and chasing skirts or going off on road trips for one adventure or another.

Accordingly, after this post, I intend to stay out of this wine conversation.

*laughing*

Enjoy your discussion, bunch of Winos.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry

It is tough that so much rides on so few turns sometimes. A CV clash can change the game for years, literally. I've had to talk a few opponents off the ledge after that (even without a sync bug) and in the end we had some great gaming moments we wouldn't have had if it had ended in 43. The late game is fun, and especially for the Allies. It kinda sucks to go through the planning stages for two years only to have the game end.

So I hope this continues! [:)]

[Rio Bravo]

[center]Erroneous Combat Results & AAR Combat After Action Report

Post 1954

for October 5, 1943[/center]


Members of The War College-

Turn 668 (i.e., the October 5, 1943 turn) generated a Combat Video and corresponding Combat Report Text that was substantially different than the Combat Text Report generated by Turn 669 for the same date of the war. In other words, to simplify the issue, 2 different Combat Text Reports were generated for the same date, that date being October 5, 1943.

Most helpful and astute JFBs immediately recognized the issue and immediately knew not only why two different Combat Text Reports were generated for October 5, 1943, but they also knew the implications on the war of said two reports.

Apparently, in particular with Carrier Battles, a "bug" within the gaming system can sometimes generate a false Combat Result, Combat Video, and false Combat Text Report to the Allies only. However, this "bug" does not have any effect on the actual game play.

Accordingly, my Post Number 1954 in this AAR is a bogus report of the Combat Action for the date of October 5, 1943.

Hopefully, by the end of the day, I will post a "Revised After Action Report" for October 5, 1943 Combat Action that reflects the genuine Combat Action for the day.

Thank you to the JFBs, including but not limited to Obvert and PaxMondo, for setting the record straight for El Lobo, Captain Haggard, and me.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry

It is tough that so much rides on so few turns sometimes. A CV clash can change the game for years, literally. I've had to talk a few opponents off the ledge after that (even without a sync bug) and in the end we had some great gaming moments we wouldn't have had if it had ended in 43. The late game is fun, and especially for the Allies. It kinda sucks to go through the planning stages for two years only to have the game end.

So I hope this continues! [:)]

Obvert-


Prior to leaving Guam to invade Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao, I knew and expected some rather heavy losses but decided the benefits to the Allies were worth the risk and I advised Captain Haggard of the same. I also advised Captain Haggard that there was a good chance that El Lobo would hit the Invasion fleet with his carriers when the Allied Invasion Fleet returned to Guam. I suspect that having one's carriers sunk and damaged is never a welcome treat. *laughing* However, it is the cost of doing business.

I suspect that El Lobo will want to continue the war, the Allies will adjust as appropriate and prudent, and hopefully the war will continue to fruition.

Thank you for taking the time and being kind enough in an effort to alleviate the sorrow of a few of my carriers being sunk and damaged. I expect to lose more.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

[center]Revised

After Action Report

October 5, 1943[/center]



Highlights for Today

1.) Japanese Carrier Aircraft attack the Allied Invasion Fleet.

2.) The grand tally for aircraft and ships losses for today is as follows:

-9 Japanese ships are damaged, including but not limited to, 2 CLs and 4 DDs damaged.
-13 Allied ships are sunk and 8 are damaged, including but not limited to, 3 CVs damaged, 2 CVEs sunk and 4 damaged, 1 BB damaged, and 2 DDs sunk.

-162 Japanese aircraft destroyed and 52 damaged.
-17 Allied aircraft destroyed and 14 damaged.

-5,129 Japanese ground casualties.
-9,826 Allied ground casualties

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) ASW Attack near Cantanduanes(hex 86,79).

Japanese Losses

None

Allied Losses

SS Corvine: 1 hit.

2.) The Marianas Islands.

Japanese Losses

5 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).

CL Noshiro: 2 shell hits.
CL Oyodo: 2 shell hits; 1 torpedo hit; on fire.
DD Kosugiri: 8 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Uji: 4 shell hits; on fire.
E Tsuga: 2 shell hits; on fire.
E Kiji: 4 shell hits; on fire.

Allied Losses

3 destroyed (F4U-1 Corsair).

DD Nepal: Sunk.
DD Racehorse: Sunk.
AM Sheldrake: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
SC PC-781: 1 shell hit.
PC Vigilant: Sunk.
PC Jackson: Sunk.
YMS 244: Sunk.
YMS 287: Sunk.
YMS 288: Sunk.
YMS 290: Sunk.

3.) Taihoku.

Japanese Losses

1 destroyed (N1K1 George).
1 destroyed (J2M2 Jack).

DD Suzkaze: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
DD Akatsuki: 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Tadeshiwa: 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.

Allied Losses

13 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).
4 destroyed and 9 damaged (SB2C-1C Helldiver).
5 damaged (B-24D1 Liberator).

No Allied ship losses.

4.) The Philippine Sea near Daito Shoto.

Japanese Losses

38 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).
59 destroyed and 21 damaged (B6N2 Jill).
58 destroyed and 31 damaged (D4Y3 Judy).

No Japanese ship losses.

Allied Losses

1 destroyed (F4F-4 Wildcat).
3 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

CV Enterprise: 2 bomb hits; 1 torpedo hit; heavy fires.
CV Saratoga: 1 bomb hit; 1 torpedo hit.
CV Lexington: 1 torpedo hit.
CVE Altamaha: Sunk.
CVE Santee: Sunk.
CVE Long Island: 2 torpedo hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
CVE Copahee: 2 torpedo hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
CVE Nassau: 2 bomb hits; 1 torpedo hit; heavy fires; heavy damage.
CVE Suwannee: 1 bomb hit; heavy fires.
BB Mississippi: 1 torpedo hit.
SS Bluefish: 2 hits.
CM Gouden Leeuw: Sunk.

5.) Japanese bomb Chungking. Same old story; minimal casualties, manpower hits, and hundreds of thousands of fires.

6.) Japanese bomb 10th Chinese Corps near Chungking (hex 77,46).

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

112 Chinese casualties.

7.) Japanese bomb 94th Chinese Corps near Chungking (hex 77,47).

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

63 Chinese casualties.

8.) Japanese bomb 90th Chinese Corps at Shaoyang.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

88 Chinese casualties.

9.) Japanese deliberate attack near Chungking (hex 77,46).

Japanese Losses

5,026 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

8,946 Chinese casualties.

10.) Allied shock attack at Taichu.

Japanese Losses

133 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

612 Allied casualties.


Attached below as a link is the entire genuine Combat Report for October 5, 1943.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[pontiouspilot]

Those losses are not significant. Have you conceded as your opponent suggests or is this more of your Yankee fake news?

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Those losses are not significant. Have you conceded as your opponent suggests or is this more of your Yankee fake news?

pontiouspilot-


No, I have never conceded.

The close of Turn 668 generated a Combat Video and Combat Text Report that substantially differed from Turn 669's Combat Text Report.

I suspected and so advised El Lobo that I thought there was a glitch in the gaming system.

El Lobo and I could not figure out why we had two different Combat Reports for the same date; that date being October 5, 1943. We didn't know which Combat Report was accurate (if either). We went back and forth with emails for days trying to figure it out without any success.

El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do.

Considering we did not know why we had two different Combat Reports and we didn't know which one was genuine (if either), I told El Lobo it didn't seem to make much sense to spend so much time, energy and effort playing a game which could be compromised.

After that, the JFB's advised that it was a "Sync Bug" that generated false reports only to the Allies and that the "Sync Bug" did not have any effect on the genuine Combat Results. Furthermore, the JFBs advised us that the genuine Combat Report was the Combat Report found within Turn 669.

Accordingly, I emailed El Lobo telling him that since we now knew what had occurred, why it had occurred, which Combat Report was genuine, and that the "Sync Bug" had no effect on Combat Results, I did not see any reason for us not to continue the war.

I suspect El Lobo will agree with me. I haven't heard back from him yet.

Best Regards,

-Terry