Notes from a Small Island

[savelius2]

I’m a regular reader but very infrequent poster, so my apologies for piling on. That said,you’re entering the endgame for Japan, when they’re clawing for everything they can get and their ability to do so is waning every turn. Some players like Lowpe seem to thrive in such an environment (masochist!), others less so. But when a centerpiece of your successful invasions is repeatedly forcing your opponents troops into behavior out of his control (which you rightly call “self-destructive bombardments”) is it anything other than disingenuous to question why he might be struggling to stay engaged? So far your invasion of Sakhalin resulted in him being unable to sweep due to the combat model breaking down, allowing you to base planes in range of the home islands without fear of reprisals, and your invasions are making his fortress levels irrelevant because of the autobombardments. I’m enjoying your thread a great deal, but it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the things happening in game might be a source of friction.

Edit: with that said, we’re the peanut gallery. If you’re concerned about your opponent you should probably just check in. It’s a game and a huge time commitment, seeing how he feels about the game might not be unwarranted. He might be fine with all of this, but if he isn’t it might be worth considering your tactics.

[Canoerebel]

Why? I wouldn't stop this any more than I would ask Erik to not use his air force, which is powerful in ways that I cannot match, since I lack control over production. These are just features of the game, well known, and we're both employing them, the best we can. And Erik could counter the move using his navy, but that's been pretty much used up already, so he's in a tight spot, which isn't unusual given it's 1945.

The Japanese lead is 11,000+. I think it's "shrunk" about 1,000 or 2,000 points over the past three months, during which the Allies have been (according to my reckoning) remarkably successful in taking the Kuriles and Wakkanai and (almost) Kushiro. Erik is managing the points aspect very carefully and effectively. If I ceded on of the few Allied strategies that's working (by my reckoning), the game would last until about 1957.

What you're asking is akin to a baseball manager saying, "Mr. Kershaw, please don't throw your fastball any more" after loading up his team with Rafael Palmiro, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and Mark Maguire.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: savelius2
I’m a regular reader but very infrequent poster, so my apologies for piling on. That said,you’re entering the endgame for Japan, when they’re clawing for everything they can get and their ability to do so is waning every turn. Some players like Lowpe seem to thrive in such an environment (masochist!), others less so. But when a centerpiece of your successful invasions is repeatedly forcing your opponents troops into behavior out of his control (which you rightly call “self-destructive bombardments”) is it anything other than disingenuous to question why he might be struggling to stay engaged? So far your invasion of Sakhalin resulted in him being unable to sweep due to the combat model breaking down, allowing you to base planes in range of the home islands without fear of reprisals, and your invasions are making his fortress levels irrelevant because of the autobombardments. I’m enjoying your thread a great deal, but it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the things happening in game might be a source of friction.

This is the first I've heard of this complaint, after more than a decade playing AE and WitP. I don't understand it. There's no friction between Erik and I, so far as I know. If this is an invalid tactic, I'd simply have to resign the game out of shame that I apparently don't know and recognize boundaries.

As for Sikhalin Island, whatever was messing with the early air battles there seems to have been eliminated long ago. Erik has used massive sweeps, including once there, as have I, and the model seems to be working fine. And my air force within range of his Home Islands has struggled mightily due to his uber fighters?

Have those protesting here asked Erik to stop using research and production to enhance his air force? I haven't. I wouldn't think of it.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: savelius2

I’m a regular reader but very infrequent poster, so my apologies for piling on. That said,you’re entering the endgame for Japan, when they’re clawing for everything they can get and their ability to do so is waning every turn. Some players like Lowpe seem to thrive in such an environment (masochist!), others less so. But when a centerpiece of your successful invasions is repeatedly forcing your opponents troops into behavior out of his control (which you rightly call “self-destructive bombardments”) is it anything other than disingenuous to question why he might be struggling to stay engaged? So far your invasion of Sakhalin resulted in him being unable to sweep due to the combat model breaking down, allowing you to base planes in range of the home islands without fear of reprisals, and your invasions are making his fortress levels irrelevant because of the autobombardments. I’m enjoying your thread a great deal, but it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the things happening in game might be a source of friction.

Edit: with that said, we’re the peanut gallery. If you’re concerned about your opponent you should probably just check in. It’s a game and a huge time commitment, seeing how he feels about the game might not be unwarranted. He might be fine with all of this, but if he isn’t it might be worth considering your tactics.

How is this any different from a Japanese player exploiting the game mechanism that allows them to destroy the supply of Chinese ground troops by bombing unused airfields?

I don't see Japanese players voluntarily avoiding this obvious game mechanics exploit.

The game mechaincs are what they are and players on both sides use them to their every advantage.

[BillBrown]

Well said Hans. I do not think of them as exploits, just parts of the game.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
What you're asking is akin to a baseball manager saying, "Mr. Kershaw, please don't throw your fastball any more" after loading up his team with Rafael Palmiro, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and Mark Maguire.

Holy anabolic steroids, batman*! An interesting selection of sluggers from the era of asterisks.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Have those protesting here asked Erik to stop using research and production to enhance his air force? I haven't. I wouldn't think of it.

Sure you would. You just did. And then you printed it out. You haven't actually done it.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: savelius2

I’m a regular reader but very infrequent poster, so my apologies for piling on. That said,you’re entering the endgame for Japan, when they’re clawing for everything they can get and their ability to do so is waning every turn. Some players like Lowpe seem to thrive in such an environment (masochist!), others less so. But when a centerpiece of your successful invasions is repeatedly forcing your opponents troops into behavior out of his control (which you rightly call “self-destructive bombardments”) is it anything other than disingenuous to question why he might be struggling to stay engaged? So far your invasion of Sakhalin resulted in him being unable to sweep due to the combat model breaking down, allowing you to base planes in range of the home islands without fear of reprisals, and your invasions are making his fortress levels irrelevant because of the autobombardments. I’m enjoying your thread a great deal, but it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the things happening in game might be a source of friction.

Edit: with that said, we’re the peanut gallery. If you’re concerned about your opponent you should probably just check in. It’s a game and a huge time commitment, seeing how he feels about the game might not be unwarranted. He might be fine with all of this, but if he isn’t it might be worth considering your tactics.

savelius2 and adarbruner:

Dan has said several times in this AAR that he's uninterested in those of the peanut gallery 'lobbing grenades'. If you've read or followed this AAR, you've seen that several times regarding several subjects. He doesn't want this degree of discourse / criticism here.

Your opinions may or may not have valid perspective elsewhere in the forum or other AARs. But please respect his wishes to not deposit those criticisms here, as they are unlikely to be welcomed by other readers of the AAR or by the author.

[Canoerebel]

Chickenboy is exaggerating highly here. I asked him to stop lobbing hand grenades in here, because he was using terms like "egregious abuse," suggesting that I was being unfair or abusing the system. In my game with John III, he accused me of cheating and didn't apologize when he learned that I wasn't. He goes to far in his ardor. I don't enjoy people doing stuff like that, turning a game into an unpleasant experience.

[Canoerebel]

I haven't asked Erik to stop using his air force nor have I considered doing so. It's just part of the game. I mentioned it here (privately) to make a point.

[Lecivius]

I read both AAR's, so I can't/won't say much. Just this.

Play on.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





How is this any different from a Japanese player exploiting the game mechanism that allows them to destroy the supply of Chinese ground troops by bombing unused airfields?

I don't see Japanese players voluntarily avoiding this obvious game mechanics exploit.

I wouldn't. but maybe in second thought: yes, I would actually, that would well simulate "interdiction" missions, those aimed at hitting the supply throughput of the enemy or his logistical depots; Allies can do that either;

that's one of the reason I air bombard airfields hoping to hit the supply depots; there's no dedicated air mission I the game aiming at depots, transports and similia; in WITE it was already added;

Is this a distorsion of the game and its scope? I don't think; but to provoke an auto self destructive bombardment well this yes definitely (also if provoked or "abused" from Japanese side alike);

an exploitation of not well tweaked feature in WITP AE;

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

If this is an invalid tactic, I'd simply have to resign the game

no need to resign? just why to use that unpleasant trick?




Briefly, bombardment of airfield to hit the supply (and the possibility for Japan to adjust its airplanes production - they did not lead a war on two very though fronts while refurbishing all the other allies, as America was forced to; anything you add to the Pacific is subtracted from the European front, not that easy at all))would make sense;

But to land a dozen of human cannon fodders just to provoke artillery bombardment and than automatic more precise counter battery? what sense does it make? Neat distorsion;

[RangerJoe]

Now that you have units at Bihoro (sp?) his units in the clear hex are trapped if you control all hexsides. Their only relief is from the the West or Northwest as long as you keep units at Bihoro. I think that their distance moved also gets reset to 0. Very sneaky. [;)]

As far as the fast TFs and the resulting auto bombardment, there was a discussion somewhere else (I don't remember exactly where [&:]) but the way that Dan is using them is fine.

As far as hand grenades go, a Drill Sergeant said "If you pull the pin on the grenade and drop it in your own foxhole, it could ruin your whole day."

[adarbrauner]

I think the "counter battery " feature is a "leftover" from Uncommon Valor; one of the characteristics of the Guadalcanal campaign (and of others, as in Okinawa)is that Japanese artillery was deterred from bombarding by the counter battery of the more powerful and better supplied American artillery;

I think 2by3 wanted to stress this interesting and relevant historical feature in that game but than stuck in the bigger WITP even though not applicable there in that extent;

more discretion should be granted to the player in use of his artillery; or better mechanics and rules governing the artillery - counter artillery feature;

[Lecivius]

Enough on the counter battery fire issue, please. Both sides are aware of what is going on.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Both sides are aware of what is going on.

And I guess Eric/Obvert is much pleased by this game feature...

Maybe he could put his artillery in "reserve" mode to avoid counter battery? shall it work?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Both sides are aware of what is going on.

And I guess Eric/Obvert is much pleased by this game feature...

No need for sarcasm, please be polite.

Their are "exploits" used by both sides. There are things that are not included in the game that were actually done by both sides during the war. We have to play and enjoy the game as it is.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Both sides are aware of what is going on.

And I guess Eric/Obvert is much pleased by this game feature...

Maybe he could put his artillery in "reserve" mode to avoid counter battery? shall it work?

Simple enough. Ask him. And take a page from Aaron Rodgers.

R-E-L-A-X

[RangerJoe]

I read where someone did use a CD unit at a narrow straight effectively. I believe that the unit was in reserve mode but, more important, had a leader with low aggression. When enemy surface TFs had passed through the hex, the CD unit was put in combat mode and the the leader was replaced with one with a very high aggression. I believe that six [X(] CVEs were sunk by that CD unit. [&o]

[aleajactaest10044]

This clearly explains why the Americans will let Japan have free reign in the Pacific...payment for the Revolutionary War (see c3:00). That Roosevelt guy was tricky, I always thought he was wheelchair bound during the war years...not so!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmk3qDLVMyE