Empire of the Sun - DesertWolf101 (J) vs Andy Mac (A)

[DesertWolf101]

March 4, 1942

Indian Ocean

In the far reaches of the southern Indian Ocean, the heavy cruisers Mikuma and Mogami and two destroyers fall upon a sizable Allied convoy of 13 transports and a KV escort. The KV is quickly dispatched and the convoy is annihilated in three separate engagements during the night.

Bay of Bengal

Long range Japanese naval search picks up what is reported to be a few small cruiser task forces near Ceylon. Could be trouble.

South Pacific

Japanese forces land on Upolu and Ta’u in the Samoa Islands.

[Alfred]

We seem to have jumped 2 months. Without the Amphibious bonus, it is going to be tough landing at Diamond Harbour.[:)]

Alfred

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

We seem to have jumped 2 months. Without the Amphibious bonus, it is going to be tough landing at Diamond Harbour.[:)]

Alfred

I keep messing up the dates for some reason [&:]

Thanks for catching that, I will fix them [:)]

[DesertWolf101]

Update

I haven't been posting much lately so I wanted to update on why. I haven't heard back from my opponent for several days now. I am not sure what's going on as we had daily communication before. I very much doubt it's a rage quit event as he just had a very good turn right before the communication stopped. I hope everything is alright.

[DesertWolf101]

Update 2

Another time window when I would usually receive my turn has passed and I still haven't heard anything from my opponent. I'm beginning to think that I have indeed been ghosted. In fact, I hope that is the case as the alternative is something bad having happened and that is even worse.

Have to say it's a bit frustrating. My best guess is Alpine Dingo probably worked and my opponent threw in the towel. I don't know. I hate to see all the hard work I have put into this being drawn to a close so early. I would have continued to 1945 even with what was starting to look like an AV by the end of the game year. [&:]

[RangerJoe]

Does your opponent post on the forums? If so, has he been on lately?

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Does your opponent post on the forums? If so, has he been on lately?

He was a prolific poster in the past but I don't think he has posted anything in a long time so I can't glean anything from that.

I guess I can't get hung up on this - I would have appreciated at least an email like I got from my last opponent, but what can you do? People will be people, and I sincerely hope nothing actually bad has happened.

[Lowpe]

Unfortunate to hear.[:(]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Update 2

Another time window when I would usually receive my turn has passed and I still haven't heard anything from my opponent. I'm beginning to think that I have indeed been ghosted. In fact, I hope that is the case as the alternative is something bad having happened and that is even worse.

Have to say it's a bit frustrating. My best guess is Alpine Dingo probably worked and my opponent threw in the towel. I don't know. I hate to see all the hard work I have put into this being drawn to a close so early. I would have continued to 1945 even with what was starting to look like an AV by the end of the game year. [&:]

If you have, in fact, been "ghosted", I'm not in the least surprised.

Personally I would be very wary of playing anyone who insisted on anonymity. There is no requirement for a PBEM player to write up an AAR. Writing an AAR is time consuming, runs the risk of op sec breaches, and particularly for a non native english speaker might well be a very difficult task. However when anonymity is insisted it does hide the reputation from becoming known in the AE PBEM community and consequently any shenanigans can be indulged in without tarring the reputation. Having a good reputation is often a key factor to find strong opponents.

Alfred

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Update 2

Another time window when I would usually receive my turn has passed and I still haven't heard anything from my opponent. I'm beginning to think that I have indeed been ghosted. In fact, I hope that is the case as the alternative is something bad having happened and that is even worse.

Have to say it's a bit frustrating. My best guess is Alpine Dingo probably worked and my opponent threw in the towel. I don't know. I hate to see all the hard work I have put into this being drawn to a close so early. I would have continued to 1945 even with what was starting to look like an AV by the end of the game year. [&:]

If you have, in fact, been "ghosted", I'm not in the least surprised.

Personally I would be very wary of playing anyone who insisted on anonymity. There is no requirement for a PBEM player to write up an AAR. Writing an AAR is time consuming, runs the risk of op sec breaches, and particularly for a non native english speaker might well be a very difficult task. However when anonymity is insisted it does hide the reputation from becoming known in the AE PBEM community and consequently any shenanigans can be indulged in without tarring the reputation. Having a good reputation is often a key factor to find strong opponents.

Alfred

You are right of course. At the end of the day, a victory is a victory and with how things were going I can even sympathize with my opponent's desire to call it quits. What galls me however is the lack of even the common courtesy of letting me know about the decision to raise the white flag. Anonymity does make it easier to engage in such unseemly behavior, but I will not out my opponent out even now because I still don't know what actually happened to him, and I don't want to name and shame in the off chance that it was something beyond his control. Just something I have to leave be I think at this point.

[Bif1961]

Sad to hear that this has ended and on a sour note. As you said you hope that is simply a bad ending to you game instead of the potential sad alternative.

[mind_messing]

That's an impressive showing in China.

Shame about how things have appeared to have ended up - beating that loop of pessimism in the face of repeated setbacks and defeats can be a challenge. Sometimes half of the game is overcoming that...

[RangerJoe]

The Allied player should know that he is going to take a beating but can still come back. Even the Japanese player, after being stymied, can come back if the Allies try too much too soon.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Allied player should know that he is going to take a beating but can still come back. Even the Japanese player, after being stymied, can come back if the Allies try too much too soon.

I agree, but it can be a psychological pit for the Allies in the early war.

If there's not an appropriate (or realistic) frame of reference for what success looks like (either for the Allies in the early game or Japan in the late game) then a player is always going to be disappointed.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Allied player should know that he is going to take a beating but can still come back. Even the Japanese player, after being stymied, can come back if the Allies try too much too soon.

I agree, but it can be a psychological pit for the Allies in the early war.

If there's not an appropriate (or realistic) frame of reference for what success looks like (either for the Allies in the early game or Japan in the late game) then a player is always going to be disappointed.

A player needs to define what success is at the beginning, such as not losing India or Australia. That can change as the war progresses but the player needs to be realistic. The game has been played by many people, there are many AARs out there which show excellent play by both sides. Sometimes you learn more when you are losing than when you are winning.

Just like investing. If you invest in a company with growth potential, define what you want and if it is a 30% return and you sell it for that price, then don't complain if you would have held a little bit longer and got a 40% return before the stock price dropped.

[RADM.Yamaguchi]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Allied player should know that he is going to take a beating but can still come back. Even the Japanese player, after being stymied, can come back if the Allies try too much too soon.

I agree, but it can be a psychological pit for the Allies in the early war.

If there's not an appropriate (or realistic) frame of reference for what success looks like (either for the Allies in the early game or Japan in the late game) then a player is always going to be disappointed.

A player needs to define what success is at the beginning, such as not losing India or Australia. That can change as the war progresses but the player needs to be realistic. The game has been played by many people, there are many AARs out there which show excellent play by both sides. Sometimes you learn more when you are losing than when you are winning.

Just like investing. If you invest in a company with growth potential, define what you want and if it is a 30% return and you sell it for that price, then don't complain if you would have held a little bit longer and got a 40% return before the stock price dropped.

"Sometimes you learn more when you are losing than when you are winning."

You can say that again!

[Lowpe]

I hope their health is ok. Long time frequent poster goes silent, wants anonymity, that doesn't sound healthy to me. Best wishes to anonymous.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Allied player should know that he is going to take a beating but can still come back. Even the Japanese player, after being stymied, can come back if the Allies try too much too soon.

I agree, but it can be a psychological pit for the Allies in the early war.

If there's not an appropriate (or realistic) frame of reference for what success looks like (either for the Allies in the early game or Japan in the late game) then a player is always going to be disappointed.

A player needs to define what success is at the beginning, such as not losing India or Australia. That can change as the war progresses but the player needs to be realistic. The game has been played by many people, there are many AARs out there which show excellent play by both sides. Sometimes you learn more when you are losing than when you are winning.

Just like investing. If you invest in a company with growth potential, define what you want and if it is a 30% return and you sell it for that price, then don't complain if you would have held a little bit longer and got a 40% return before the stock price dropped.

I was meaning defining success at the operational level, rather than the strategic.

The game spells out what success looks like at the strategic level quite clearly via the VP system and victory levels.

The problem in my view is that there's a general lack of insight into how the game plays out over time. The majority of games will end in the first 365 turns, one way or another.

I don't think the comparison to investing holds up, as the victory levels are very much a zero sum game.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



I agree, but it can be a psychological pit for the Allies in the early war.

If there's not an appropriate (or realistic) frame of reference for what success looks like (either for the Allies in the early game or Japan in the late game) then a player is always going to be disappointed.

A player needs to define what success is at the beginning, such as not losing India or Australia. That can change as the war progresses but the player needs to be realistic. The game has been played by many people, there are many AARs out there which show excellent play by both sides. Sometimes you learn more when you are losing than when you are winning.

Just like investing. If you invest in a company with growth potential, define what you want and if it is a 30% return and you sell it for that price, then don't complain if you would have held a little bit longer and got a 40% return before the stock price dropped.

I was meaning defining success at the operational level, rather than the strategic.

The game spells out what success looks like at the strategic level quite clearly via the VP system and victory levels.

The problem in my view is that there's a general lack of insight into how the game plays out over time. The majority of games will end in the first 365 turns, one way or another.

I don't think the comparison to investing holds up, as the victory levels are very much a zero sum game.

The comparison to investing hold up if you decide what you want to get out of something and are satisfied when you get it. A player might lose by VPs but go to the end of the game to do so. A player might decide that lasting longer than the Japanese actually did but still lose and can claim that as a victory. A Japanese player might lose 3 major carriers at the beginning of the game, yet still play a tough fight into 1946 while not losing by VPs until 1946 and I would call that a victory.

[DesertWolf101]

Hey guys, I have finally heard back from my opponent. Apparently he developed simultaneous computer and phone trouble and only managed to resolve them now. Whatever the case may be, I am happy that it wasn't something worse as you just never know with these things.

We have decided to continue with the campaign and see what happens. Thank you all for your comments and I apologize for any drama that may have arisen out of this.