Notes from a Small Island

[Canoerebel]

It seems like we think along the same lines. If I lose 100 TBMs in exchange for one miss against an APD, that's awful. If I lose 100 TBMs and, in exchange, enemy CAP is worn out so that the next wave sinks three enemy BBs, its probably worth it. Every player feels that way, whether they guide by victory points or simply "feel."

[Canoerebel]

2/17/45

NoPac: This turn followed the script of the past four days or so. It was a good turn for the Allies, with negligible losses, but the damage inflicted on Japan was less (mainly dice rolls, I think), especially in the contested hex.

[Canoerebel]

2/17/45

Bihoro: Enemy bombardment reveals only one half-strength IJ division at Bihoro. I have a 950-AV army 26 miles (about seven days) from this base. If Erik reinforces substantially, I might scrub the advance, electing instead another approach later. But there's a chance Erik won't try to hold Bihoro, since it's exposed and clear terrain. There's also a chance he'll fight hard, since he can rail in (but not out) troops, if Allied units are in the hex.

[Canoerebel]

2/17/45

Kushiro: Ripe for the plucking, I think. Allied army has a 6:1 AV advantage now. Tomorrow's attack should do it, unless the four forts are just a bit much to overcome. The last two attacks each came off at 3:1, and Erik has lost a goodly number of men since then.

[HansBolter]

Your comment above about the lower rate of P47Ns compared to P47D25s made me wonder how your P51D pool looks and how effective it has been for you.

I'm a bit ahead of you in June '45 now and I found the P51D abundant when the P47D25 pool was running dry.

Obviously, even though I'm facing even more advanced Japanese models than you with eth Shinden and Japanese version of the Me262, the AI doesn't put up near as an effective fight with them as a thinking player so my losses are nowhere near yours.

And BTW B29s shoot down Japanese Me262s as easily as other aircraft in night encounters.

[Canoerebel]

I have more squadrons flying the P-47D25 than the P-51D, so the former is burning through stockpiles more quickly. I have about 130 of the Mustangs in my pools compared to about 35 Thunderbolts, as noted earlier.

I have found both models perform decently in the sweep role, at least in heavy concentrations that might include Corsairs and Spit VIIIs.

When this game started, I had a pretty low opinion of the Mustang. That's changed a bit for the better now. I'm very glad to have it and will rely on it more heavily going forward, since the Thunderbolts will grow scarce.

THere is a chance the Allies are going to run out of fighters - or at least have to dial back ops seriously in order to not outdraw production. If that happens, the chief suspect in my mind will be Japanese production capabilities that far exceed Allied capabilities.

Would that indicate a weakness in the game? Or does it reflect cumulative errors by the Allied players by not cutting off Japan from the DEI, instead going for the "throat" (Hokkaido)? IE, could Erik have done this had the Allies succeeded in taking out the DEI within a reasonable amount of time?

I believe a DEI-centered strategy beginning March 1, 1944 (the date I stepped in) would have been less successful than the course I've chosen.

[JohnDillworth]

neutered Allied subs, nuclear Japanese escorts and unlimited Japanese production is a bad combination. Compound this with no war in China (that is not a game thing so much as how this game broke before you inherited it)and you have a tough situation. In real life the Allies did what the Germans wanted to do. Strangle an economy via relentless submarine warfare. That strategy is simply not available in the game. In my opinion that is one of the major flaws, if not THE major flaw in the game

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

neutered Allied subs

Valid point, but works both ways.

nuclear Japanese escorts

Fixed literally years ago now.

unlimited Japanese production

A downright lie.

But it's ok, just keep on pushing your narrative.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have more squadrons flying the P-47D25 than the P-51D, so the former is burning through stockpiles more quickly. I have about 130 of the Mustangs in my pools compared to about 35 Thunderbolts, as noted earlier.

I have found both models perform decently in the sweep role, at least in heavy concentrations that might include Corsairs and Spit VIIIs.

When this game started, I had a pretty low opinion of the Mustang. That's changed a bit for the better now. I'm very glad to have it and will rely on it more heavily going forward, since the Thunderbolts will grow scarce.

THere is a chance the Allies are going to run out of fighters - or at least have to dial back ops seriously in order to not outdraw production. If that happens, the chief suspect in my mind will be Japanese production capabilities that far exceed Allied capabilities.

Would that indicate a weakness in the game? Or does it reflect cumulative errors by the Allied players by not cutting off Japan from the DEI, instead going for the "throat" (Hokkaido)? IE, could Erik have done this had the Allies succeeded in taking out the DEI within a reasonable amount of time?

I believe a DEI-centered strategy beginning March 1, 1944 (the date I stepped in) would have been less successful than the course I've chosen.

Excessive focus on a single theatre will lead to the Japanese concentrating their forces. They can do that much better than the Allies due to geography.

Play the map. You've the bigger navy, make full use of it.

As Bullwinkle says, it's not a air game, it's a naval game.

[JohnDillworth]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

neutered Allied subs

Valid point, but works both ways.

No, the Allies have WAY too many ships and good escorts for Japan to hope to economically isolate the US. Not to mention resources and supplies are not really an issue for the Allied economy because production is fixed.

nuclear Japanese escorts

Fixed literally years ago now.

Nope....not in the unpathced version they are playing. You would know that if you were reading the AAR as this has been discussed before. Guess it's just easier to be a sniper though heh?

unlimited Japanese production

"A downright lie."

Read that comment back to yourself. Are you really proud of that? Do you think that was the most constructive response?

"But it's ok, just keep on pushing your narrative."

Let me guess...you use the words "narrative", and "agenda" a lot in your social media accounts?



[

[Canoerebel]

I can't imagine what got into Mind Messing to post that way to another respected member of the Forum. I've never seen that from him before and wouldn't have expected to now.

John's comments about social media are interesting. I'd had the same exact thought about some of the posts that happened in here yesterday. The social media mentality is taking over the world - politics, news, sports, and now perhaps even the Forum.

This is a game and oughta be (and almost always is) a refuge for gents who share a common appreciation for both game and history. I hope that isn't going to change. It probably will?

[T Rav]

CR,

I will always be an AFB, but I really like a well-written AAR, regardless of side. Hibiki anyone?

You two have fought well, within the constructs of the game that is WITP:AE.

Others should take their opinions of the game engine and their thoughts of it's foibles, to a different part of the forums. Leave the AARs to those that fight them (you & Obvert) and those that want to see them unfold.

Thank you,

T Rav

[tolsdorff]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John's comments about social media are interesting. I'd had the same exact thought about some of the posts that happened in here yesterday. The social media mentality is taking over the world - politics, news, sports, and now perhaps even the Forum.

This is a game and oughta be (and almost always is) a refuge for gents who share a common appreciation for both game and history. I hope that isn't going to change. It probably will?

Let's hope it is a temporary thing. Tense games like your game with Erik will always generate emotions, no reason however to start behaving ungentlemanly.

In analogous human undertakings like Chess, playing a completely new novelty, won't result in accusations of unfair play either. It justs expands the knowledge of that particular opening or line and people will find a refutation or different way of play.

Your game with Erik is not different. You both found novel ways of play. Good players just learn to deal with it, like you both are doing.

Excellent AAR. Hope you both can keep it up.

[mind_messing]

No, the Allies have WAY too many ships and good escorts for Japan to hope to economically isolate the US. Not to mention resources and supplies are not really an issue for the Allied economy because production is fixed.

I meant in the strict sense of the game mechanics. It is very rare to get a sub to attempt to attack multiple ships in the same task force, a la I-19 or those USN subs shadowing convoys by radar.

Nope....not in the unpathced version they are playing. You would know that if you were reading the AAR as this has been discussed before. Guess it's just easier to be a sniper though heh?

If you're playing the unpatched version, you've no right to complain. It's an issue that's been identified and fixed by a member of the original dev team. What more do you want?

Read that comment back to yourself. Are you really proud of that? Do you think that was the most constructive response?

"But it's ok, just keep on pushing your narrative."

Let me guess...you use the words "narrative", and "agenda" a lot in your social media accounts?

I found your format of posting with a truth, a half-truth and a lie interesting.

As for constructive responses, your original post was more or less a "Yeah that isn't a valid strategy because the game is broken." when in fact that is not the case. What should Canoe do? Give up because it doesn't matter how good he is he'll never beat Japanese "unlimited" production? Very constructive.

Japanese production of airframes is not unlimited. It is restricted by supply, for factory expansion and repairs. Even assuming production of airframes WAS unlimited, the bottleneck remains supply, both for taking replacements into squadrons (which provides an upper limit on the maximum airframes that can be deployed operationally) as well as for actually letting those airframes operate in a combat role.

I can't imagine what got into Mind Messing to post that way to another respected member of the Forum. I've never seen that from him before and wouldn't have expected to now.

A complaint about a specific aspect of game mechanics that's a bit wonky I can get behind.

Complaining about an issue that has been solved since around 2012 is just silly.

Then making a claim about the game that is demonstrably false? [8|]

[HansBolter]

Categorizing a mild exaggeration as a lie for the impact effect of the statement is as far over the top as it gets and we both know you know it.

All it served was it's intended purpose... antagonization.

Not needed. Not welcome. No one here knows that better than me cause I used to be the most guilty of it poster on this forum.

MM and I had many a raw exchange back in those not so good ole days.


Do us all a favor and knock it off the way I did MM.

[Bif1961]

I agree with others here, that when we type things we often know what we mean to say and sometimes we take things for granted that the person on the other end knows how we meant questions or statements to be taken. We should always read our statements back to ourselves as if we are receiving them and see if we really are saying what we want to and in the way we intended. I was in Army Intelligence for 24 years and the Intelligence Community for 30 years and we had "social media," before it became popular with the public, and I would tell my soldiers never type angry because once you hit send you can't un-ring that bell. Those who didn't follow that rule would frequently find themselves on the receiving end of a heated telephone call later usually with someone many pay grades above their level.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

I agree with others here, that when we type things we often know what we mean to say and sometimes we take things for granted that the person on the other end knows how we meant questions or statements to be taken. We should always read our statements back to ourselves as if we are receiving them and see if we really are saying what we want to and in the way we intended. I was in Army Intelligence for 24 years and the Intelligence Community for 30 years and we had "social media," before it became popular with the public, and I would tell my soldiers never type angry because once you hit send you can't un-ring that bell. Those who didn't follow that rule would frequently find themselves on the receiving end of a heated telephone call later usually with someone many pay grades above their level.

That applies to all communication, especially face-to-face. There is a reason that "Count to ten when you feel like lashing out" is one of the first pieces of advice a child gets. Shouting/using hot button words shuts down communication. Replies should always be calmer to de-escalate the exchange.

[Bullwinkle58]

Not intending to wade into the drama, but on one point in this area I join in the frustration with the game design and certain up-front decisions made by GG & Co. long ago, and out of scope for the AE devs to alter.

The Allied submarine war is porked.

Yet, it was the submarine war that led, through economic and production and training shortfalls, to the neutering of the Japanese air effort in the final push on the HI. But, to close the loop, the game OOB is predicated on the historical neutering that does not happen in the game, and cannot happen due to the submarine war modeling.

No, the Japanese in the game cannot field infinite air forces. But they can field order of magnitude larger and more effective air forces, while the Allies are in the historical loop that cannot be matched in the game due the aforementioned porking.

So it goes . . .

[BBfanboy]

I have long ago accepted that the designers toned-down the effectiveness of Allied subs to make the game more playable for the Japanese player. If it keeps the IJ player in the match longer, it is worth it IMO.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I have long ago accepted that the designers toned-down the effectiveness of Allied subs to make the game more playable for the Japanese player. If it keeps the IJ player in the match longer, it is worth it IMO.

I don't disagree with the process. More the degree of toning.

[Canoerebel]

2/18/45

The focus today will be Kushiro, where I think there a better than even chance the Allies will take the base.

Kushiro D+10: The turn opens with another modest bombardment. Looks like these very old, very slow BBs are much better employed in amphibious TFs.