Notes from a Small Island

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's daunting.

I'm trying to take into consideration as many factors as I can - little things, like moon phase, riff-raff use, CAP traps, and anything else I can come up with. What bothers me is that there are things I don't know that I don't know.

"
Was it Rumsfeld or Cheney who coined that immortal phrase: There are the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.....

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's daunting.

I'm trying to take into consideration as many factors as I can - little things, like moon phase, riff-raff use, CAP traps, and anything else I can come up with. What bothers me is that there are things I don't know that I don't know.

"
Was it Rumsfeld or Cheney who coined that immortal phrase: There are the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.....

No, it's a very old logical structure and very useful.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's daunting.

I'm trying to take into consideration as many factors as I can - little things, like moon phase, riff-raff use, CAP traps, and anything else I can come up with. What bothers me is that there are things I don't know that I don't know.

"
Was it Rumsfeld or Cheney who coined that immortal phrase: There are the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.....

No, it's a very old logical structure and very useful.

Well, if it wasn't original it was certainly timely in its use. I recall the media going bonkers over its use at the time.

[jwolf]

It was Rumsfeld, in late 2001. As for the earlier history of that concept, I don't know.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

It was Rumsfeld, in late 2001. As for the earlier history of that concept, I don't know.

It sounds like something he would have heard in an intel briefing from the CIA or DIA or NSA. He could say it publicly while the agencies could not.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: jwolf

It was Rumsfeld, in late 2001. As for the earlier history of that concept, I don't know.

It sounds like something he would have heard in an intel briefing from the CIA or DIA or NSA. He could say it publicly while the agencies could not.

AFAIK it is from way, way back.

[BillBrown]

I found a reference to a Persian Poet:

A thirteenth-century Persian poet, Ibn Yamin[22] (ابن یمین فریومدی), said there are four types of men:[23]

One who knows and knows that he knows... His horse of wisdom will reach the skies.
One who knows, but doesn't know that he knows... He is fast asleep, so you should wake him up!
One who doesn't know, but knows that he doesn't know... His limping mule will eventually get him home.
One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know... He will be eternally lost in his hopeless oblivion!

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I found a reference to a Persian Poet:

A thirteenth-century Persian poet, Ibn Yamin[22] (ÇÈä یãیä ÝÑیæãÏی), said there are four types of men:[23]

One who knows and knows that he knows... His horse of wisdom will reach the skies.
One who knows, but doesn't know that he knows... He is fast asleep, so you should wake him up!
One who doesn't know, but knows that he doesn't know... His limping mule will eventually get him home.
One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know... He will be eternally lost in his hopeless oblivion!

WEll thank you for the quote

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I found a reference to a Persian Poet:

A thirteenth-century Persian poet, Ibn Yamin[22] (ابن یمین فریومدی), said there are four types of men:[23]

One who knows and knows that he knows... His horse of wisdom will reach the skies.
One who knows, but doesn't know that he knows... He is fast asleep, so you should wake him up!
One who doesn't know, but knows that he doesn't know... His limping mule will eventually get him home.
One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know... He will be eternally lost in his hopeless oblivion!

Bill you are awesome!

[Bif1961]

I worked for two out of three of those three letter agencies, which ones I can not confirm or deny. [8D]

[jwolf]

Hmm, I guess that is a known unknown. [;)]

[Canoerebel]

9/29/44

NoPac: A pitched battle near Shikuka. The Allies come out short on points but force the Japanese fleet to expend a lot of ammo. If Erik's combat ships have to retire to replenish, then this bought perhaps four or five days. At this point, that's critical.

[Chickenboy]

I know you've heard this before, but feel the need to reiterate for those that are unfamiliar with this technique: I find the use of xAKs, xAPs and other non-military craft intentionally to soak off sorties and act as ablative ammo soaks gamey in the extreme. Your mileage may vary.

[DRF99]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I know you've heard this before, but feel the need to reiterate for those that are unfamiliar with this technique: I find the use of xAKs, xAPs and other non-military craft intentionally to soak off sorties and act as ablative ammo soaks gamey in the extreme. Your mileage may vary.

Here it seems that both sides are doing it.

Erik is flooding the zone with "riff-raff", Canoe is meeting them with hordes of PTs, xAKs, etc. Seems pretty balanced.

[Canoerebel]

I haven't (and never have) used non-military ships to soak off sorties. Erik hasn't even flown any sorties.

As for the use of ships, what's going on is what you'd expect under these circumstances in war. It's late 1944, the Allies are pretty far behind the real war, the Japanese air force is far mightier than in reality, and Erik is throwing every kind of ship he has at a "cavalry detachment" surrounded and threatened with annihilation. Under these circumstances, the Allies would make the wisest possible use of all the ships and other assets at their disposal - creating floating "torpedoes" (bombs), sinking them to close channels, or whatever else might be thought necessary and prudent to stave off destruction. The game engine doesn't allow us to block channels, etc., so I'm doing the next best thing.

The cavalry is on the way, so buying time is paramount. Expending PT boats, LSTs and xAKs while also committing everything possible capable of fighting as a combat TF (DMS, DE, APD) makes sense. I'm doing it at a cost - the xAKS, for instance, are worth a lot of points, and the APDs, DEs and DMSs are important parts of my OOB. But I have little choice.

[Canoerebel]

9/30/44

Shikuka: Very tense as Erik seeks a way to penetrate the Allied defenses. Does he know or suspect that Death Star is around or has whatever data he has available led him to other suspicions?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: DRF99

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I know you've heard this before, but feel the need to reiterate for those that are unfamiliar with this technique: I find the use of xAKs, xAPs and other non-military craft intentionally to soak off sorties and act as ablative ammo soaks gamey in the extreme. Your mileage may vary.

Here it seems that both sides are doing it.

Erik is flooding the zone with "riff-raff", Canoe is meeting them with hordes of PTs, xAKs, etc. Seems pretty balanced.

Equally egregious is what you meant.

I have no problems using military craft as pickets or in small "riff-raff" TFs that are expendable and have little chance of surviving an encounter with a 'real' SCTF. PT, YMS, AM, PB, PC, etc. are all fair game. My objection is to flooding the zone with superfluous xAKs, xAPs and non-military ships that will-because of the game's model-soak off valuable movement / reaction and ammunition points from the opponent.

In real life, these ships wouldn't merit a second glance from a SCTF bound on a mission of surface combat. In the game, the incoming TFs will engage and destroy them all before continuing on their way. Minus ammunition and operational points / movement points, of course.

Like I said, your mileage may vary. But I find this to be manipulation of the game engine. Players that do this wantonly have no cause for complaint about what their opponent does in turn to manipulate the mechanics of the game.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I haven't (and never have) used non-military ships to soak off sorties. Erik hasn't even flown any sorties.

In addition to aerial sorties, I also meant ship sorties. The fact that you are trying to soak off aerial sorties, but he hasn't bitten doesn't overlook the fact that you are also trying to soak off ship sorties / ammunition / movement points and operational points.

If he *does* fly some aerial sorties against the xAK rabble you are throwing out there, then you will be successfully contradicting yourself. Why put yourself in that position?

[Canoerebel]

I am not "trying to soak off aerial sorties." (You keep saying that I am, but I don't know if that's a typo in your last post or if you actually think that.) The xAK TFs and other TFs move forward one hex at night and retire during the same phase. So there haven't been any targets of opportunity out there, other than PT TFs. He's been targeting those with Nates, but stopped after some LRCAP handled them.

There is nothing gamey about this tactic. It would have been used under similar circumstances in the war and there are obvious counters to it. Erik can send in DD TFs or whatever, though there's risk in that if I counter with CA TFs. He is close to his ports and can replenish and attack repeatedly, harvesting a great deal of points.

As for targeting issues, that's just part of the game. I can't order my strike TFs to target only his big combat TFs - last turn, they flew only against riff-raff. That's just part of the game. All of this is part of the game. In real life, the Allies would make use of these empty xAKs to stem the Japanese onslaught. I'm doing the same.

I wish forumites wouldn't lob hand grenades. In another thread last week, it was allegations that people weren't interested in sportsmanship and were otherwise acting reprehensibly by doing things that half (or more) of the community didn't think was gamey. Now my conduct is "egregious" and I'm using gamey tactics when neither player (to my knowledge) thinks there's anything amiss.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I wish forumites wouldn't lob hand grenades. In another thread last week, it was allegations that people weren't interested in sportsmanship and were otherwise acting reprehensibly by doing things that half (or more) of the community didn't think was gamey. Now my conduct is "egregious" and I'm using gamey tactics when neither player (to my knowledge) thinks there's anything amiss.

I'm sorry you think this is an onslaught. I'll avoid further discussion of this topic here in your AAR thread. Outside of this, however, I think this is a valid topic of discussion and argument and will not shy away from bringing this to the fore.