The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[JohnDillworth]

In all fairness to John I don’t think he has ever played this deep. He seems to have developed a good outer defense. Once that got bypassed however, there just wasn’t a real strong inner shell. I suspect he is not the first Japanese player to miss this. I think his next game will be a bit different for him.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Nimzowitsch

"Thou shalt not shilly shally!" - Aaron Nimzowitsch, My System

[:)]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

...There's some grumbling on the other AAR about all those troop losses you had at Sumatra, and that any Allied commander responsible would have been sacked. To that I'd say: 1) this is a game, and the VP mechanism is there to handle losses; and 2) not using the full KB to challenge the invasion of the PI or subsequent closer invasions would have gotten the IJ commander sent to command the garrison at Etorofu...

Cheers,
CC

I recommend that people look up the career performances of Bogoljubov against Alekhine, and Samisch against Nimzowitsch. In relative terms Canoerebel is Alekhine or Nimzowitsch whereas John3rd is Boboljubov or Samisch. The career records strongly favour the superior strategist.

Alfred

Alekhine was every bit as good a tactician as Bogolyubov. See their game from Hastings 1922.
I would argue that Samisch and Bogolyubov did not know when not to attack. [:D]

[Alfred]

I've always greatly enjoyed Hans Kmoch's parody of Nimzowitsch in this fictional game.
 
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1334664&kpage=1
 
Samisch was quite a good player but suffered terribly from inability to manage his time.  He once lost on time still to make his 5th move.
 
Alfred

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I've always greatly enjoyed Hans Kmoch's parody of Nimzowitsch in this fictional game.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1334664&kpage=1

Samisch was quite a good player but suffered terribly from inability to manage his time.  He once lost on time still to make his 5th move.

Alfred

[:D] Poor Aron took himself way too seriously.
Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess is a great book in its own write.

[Canoerebel]

Wife and spent yesterday "orienting" Youngest Son to the sprawling University of Georgia campus. The university now has 37,000 students. It had 22,000 when Wife and I were there in the early and mid-1980s. It had 6,000 when my father-in-law graduated in the mid 1950s. Despite the growth, many buildings are the same as in 1986, so we were able to show Youngest Son the buildings and the best ways to get to and from them. He's living off-campus with his grandfather - 25 miles away in the old family house on a small pond. It's been a heckuva lot of fun doing all this. He left today at noon for his first class, which he's now completed. Two more to follow this afternoon and evening. Wife and I won't be here when he gets back tonight. We'll be on the way back home to see what life is like without Youngest Son at home.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks for all the posts and comments. I've read through many of them. It was nice to have Alfred post. I'd be lying if I didn't say it was encouraging to read his positive comments (I hope he doesn't take this as a challenge to balance his comments now).

Alfred is right that the Sumatra situation should have turned to Japan's advantage. But if I'd been playing the kind of player that would've turned it to his advantage, I probably wouldn't have invaded in the first place. After more than a decade of playing John, I knew he was likely to leave holes and to react to strongly to Allied moves far away.

I made the decision to quietly "forsake" Sumatra in mid January 1943, even though it managed to hold out until the summer. I fought hard and had some hope that something might work out there, but mainly I focused on re-orienting the Allied attack to the Pacific. It worked handsomely, IMO.

Both John and I have learned a great deal in this game. I know far more than when we started this match. And I'm frustrated at all the gaps in my knowledge - especially tactical matters with the air war.

[Lecivius]

Empty nest hurts. I was stunned at how it affected me.

Hurt more when the school expenses started to show [:D]

[ny59giants]

I would strongly recommend you play Japan at least once Dan. I'm still an AFB at heart, but there are challenges as Japan that are quiet enjoyable. If you have issues with the economy, I could always make a side trip from Chattanooga from work to stop by and get you up and running with Tracker (a must have for me).

[Canoerebel]

Thanks, Michael.

There is no question I'd benefit tremendously by playing as the Japanese side.

There's be one disadvantage - removing another block of "fog of war" that makes each match so enjoyable. For me, each game is like unwrapping a surprise present. If I play as Japan, I'll be a better player but some of that surprise will vanish forever. Is it worth it?

[Canoerebel]

3/15/45

Asia: Death Star is closing in on Formosa now, and just a few days from the Yellow Sea. IJ army still hasn't closed on the key hex NE of Gunzan. Big air battle over Gunzan as John sent in bombers and kamikazes. The raids proved disastrous for Japan (more about that in a separate post).

[Canoerebel]

3/15/45

Air Losses: Most of John's air losses today were involved in the strike/kamikaze sorties vs. Allied shipping at Gunzan. The strike aircraft scored three hits, one each on a DD, LST and APA. None of them are in danger.

I figured that at some point John would have to begin attacking against his wishes. This may be the start of that trend. I dont know if the poor results today will dissuade him or if he's reached the point of attacking no matter what. Things are getting pretty desperate for him.

[Canoerebel]

I should add that most of the Allied losses were aircraft involved in the 2EB raids vs. enemy stack SE of Keijo, Korea. These attacks have been pretty effective, despite moderate losses to Allied aircraft. Slowing down and weakening his army before it arrives at Gunzan has been a high priority mission the past week.

[Barb]

How is that he had lost 24 J1N1-C Irvings (21 in the air, 1 by flak and 2 by ops) during the day? And 23 Ki-46-III Dinahs, oh my!
Both are a Long Range Reconnaissance planes! Or did he used them on Kamikaze mission profile? Its payload should be close to 0 so the resulting damage from kami strike would be minimal...

If its used as Recon or on NavS mission, its helluwa lot of losses. And using it as Kami is sheer waste. [X(]

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody
Happy New Year! Hiking is a great pastime. I was doing a lot of hiking in Seoul (believe it or not, there are a lot of small mountains and plenty of trails within the city limits) until I finally did in one knee last summer, requiring surgery. Still, I'm hoping to have that sucker rehabilitated by Spring.

There's some grumbling on the other AAR about all those troop losses you had at Sumatra, and that any Allied commander responsible would have been sacked. To that I'd say: 1) this is a game, and the VP mechanism is there to handle losses; and 2) not using the full KB to challenge the invasion of the PI or subsequent closer invasions would have gotten the IJ commander sent to command the garrison at Etorofu. Anyway, it's a very entertaining game and I'm glad both of you gents play it like a game.

Cheers,
CC

That's a fair grumble on their part. I would've been sacked during or immediately following Sumatra. I made that point back then on numerous occasions.

And you're right about John being sacked (by his hand or others). He might've been sacked following the big carrier battle. Not because he lost - Yamamoto lost a carrier battle - but because he steamed around blindly for weeks when he shouldn't have, didn't need to and should've had navsearch running.

Following the carrier battle, I don't think the supreme IJ commander would've been sacked for the DEI invasion (though the officer in charge of preparations might've been). John reacted and fought and tried gamely to counter that move. But there's no doubt a series of IJ commanders would've been sacked (or committed seppuku) following Luzon, China, Formosa, China again and Korea.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Barb
How is that he had lost 24 J1N1-C Irvings (21 in the air, 1 by flak and 2 by ops) during the day? And 23 Ki-46-III Dinahs, oh my!
Both are a Long Range Reconnaissance planes! Or did he used them on Kamikaze mission profile? Its payload should be close to 0 so the resulting damage from kami strike would be minimal...

If its used as Recon or on NavS mission, its helluwa lot of losses. And using it as Kami is sheer waste. [X(]

I think the Irvings were being used as kamikazes. I think one scored a hit that did minimal damage (as you'd have guessed).

[Canoerebel]

Via email and comments in a main-page thread, John has stated his opposition to Victory Points. I think he feels that he can determine when Japan surrenders and that it's based on the economy or other subjective factors that he decides. He and I haven't discussed this yet, but here are my thoughts.

We're playing a game with established victory conditions. I think the Allies are about to meet those conditions (by May 1945). By that measure, the Allies will have achieved a decisive victory.

Does "Decisive Victory" seem warranted in this situation? IE, per some of Loka's comments in other threads, he makes a very good case that Victory Points may not be properly balanced yet. In close games, therefore, there might be room for further "human" evaluation.

In this game, though, the victory margin is going to be substantial and well ahead of the historic timeline (unless the wheels come off, which is possible).

Moreover, the Allies are far, far ahead of historic pace. By early 1945 in real life, Allied 4EB were hitting Japan from the Marianas. In this game, they've been hitting Japan from Luzon, Formosa, China and Korea for months. Territorially, the Allies have taken far, far more territory than taken in real life - and that territory is meaningful, significant ground close to the Home Islands.

This has been achieved in a mod in which Japan had a number of advantages, especially at sea and in the air and per some house rules. That's what I wanted - a stronger Japan able to fight harder and deeper. Yet despite those advantages, Japan has been pushed much further back much sooner than in real life.

The Japanese economy, according to John, is still humming. The Strategic Bombing points might paint a different picture. The Allies have scored 27.2k to this point, meaning that Japan has been under heavy aerial attack.

But aside from that, John chose a rather unorthodox strategy - allowing me to penetrate deep without opposition. In order to take advantage of the opportunities, I struck deep and elected to forego territory off to the sides. So John's strategy preserved for him the DEI. In order to concentrate deep, I've also mainly ignored his convoys running from the DEI back to the Home Islands. Give and take on both sides.

Now the Japanese military leaders and people are looking at the Emperor, who keeps saying, "But we still have the DEI! Our economy is still humming?" Their reply? "You allowed them to take Luzon and didn't attack, selling us on another course of action. You did the same in China. And Formosa. And Korea. And now the Allied dogs are sitting on our doorstep hammering our navy, hitting our Homeland, and apparently poised to increase the pace of punishment. And yet you never unleashed the Imperial Navy or the Divine Wind. You hung back...and when finally pressed, sent them in piecemeal to get chewed up ineffectually. We're replacing you and suing for peace."

[Canoerebel]

If I do achieve a decisive victory by game criteria in the next few months, I'll continue to play as long as John wishes to. But I do think the pace of destruction to Japan's military and economy is going to increase significantly in the next six weeks. The Allies are positioned to strike hard and the Japanese navy has begun to bleed badly.

[MakeeLearn]

Victory points can be biased and ambiguous...
Clarity in Surrender or Annihilation

[Canoerebel]

Victory Points are objective.

"Surrender or Annihilation" is subjective. John can literally choose to play until the last dot hex is taken and declare "victory" when that happens in 1948.

What's not biased or ambiguous is the comparison of where the Allies are here compared to the real war. Pretty decisive victory by that measure, which corresponds to the game's Victory Conditions. Not biased. Not ambiguous.