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

[Ambassador]

Well done on the battle of Socotra ! Down to the bottom of the sea go his last two CVs. Wasp, with three torpedoes, HF/HD, is probably doomed.

The fact that he used his CV here mighty betray his intention to concentrate his forces in India, rather than Australia. This feeling is reinforced by the appearance of the Soviet bombers.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
(a) There are Soviet units which are scheduled to be withdrawn before the normal scheduled Soviet activation date. Assuming the Japanese recon is 100% accurate in reporting unit numbers, is the reduction due to forced withdrawals?

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Soviets do withdraw many divisions, and the timing is roughly correct as I recall.

In the many years I have played, and seen others play, both classical WITP and AE, I regularly see that the concept of checking the actual ingame scenario is not well understood! [:-]
The wave of withdrawals for Stock 1 Soviets is in July 42 where 4 ID and some arty depart. The only thing that withdraws in autumn 42 is 4 NKVD regiments in Baikal region.

I concur that in this particular case of an already vast Japanese VP advantage destroying Vlad units is not really a priority. There are still pools that can be thin for Soviets wrt army guns and tanks (again, checking the actual scenario helps). But taking all pros and cons disbanding plays into Japans hand.

ORIGINAL: Alfred
As to GetAssistance's comment regarding not having seen disbanding in frontline bases on the frontline previously, well the answer is quite simple. Look at the other 4 Allied disbanding bases. If those disbanding bases were to find themselves on the actual frontlines, all that the Allied player would be achieving is depriving himself of those assets for 6 months before they resurrect themselves in exactly the same base they disbanded in. Assuming the bases (Sydney, Auckland, San Francisco) hadn't fallen in those 6 months precisely because they had lost the use of the disbanded LCUs. If the Allied player is fighting to save Sydney, San Francisco, things are really desperate and you can't afford the luxury of handicapping yourself by disbanding.

You could've spent a couple more minutes thinking and realize that in case of e.g. Sydney disbanding right before capture by Japan is the right choice with respect to everything strategic (except good game spirit of course) because ANZAC replacement rates are low anyway so 1 or 6 months delay is all the same. And you also completely deny Japan VPs for destroyed devices, what's not to like... Except your opponent's baffled reaction of course.

I am also annoyed by your "Where is the HR which prevents the disbanding?" for obvious reasons. Sometimes shorter list of points is better you know because you don't drag controversies in.

[ITAKLinus]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
I am also annoyed by your "Where is the HR which prevents the disbanding?" for obvious reasons. Sometimes shorter list of points is better you know because you don't drag controversies in.

While I am not annoyed by the sentence, i agree that it's highly improbable that every topic is covered by HRs in a proper manner at the start of the game.

That's why I deem essential to have an opponent who is flexible enough to eventually discuss them at a later stage. I ended a game won with autovictory instead of carrying on precisely for this reason: I am flexible and able/willing to renounce some advantage I can get "because it's allowed", but I do pretend the same level of flexibility from the opponent.

Had he disbanded the troops in Sydney right before it fell, I wouldn't have been pissed off, but I would have understood and decided that the game took the nasty direction.


I don't play "historical" at all, whatever it means, but I do need to know what's the spirit of the game we are playing. If, for example, I would have had such a thing in Sydney, I would have been ok with that, but then again I would have pretended from the opponent ZERO comments on whatever thing I would have done if not expressively forbidden/regulated by HRs.


Would have I won in any case without Sydney's troops?
Yes. We were already at the 4:1 when I conquered it in May '42, but it's not the point, which is instead with what spirit do we approach the game.


I find the disband done in Vladivostock quite bad to be honest (if it has happened at all). Just as above: is it a game changer? No. Is it something horrible? Not at all. Would I have a talk with my opponent regarding it? Yeah, definitely.

[Ambassador]

The opportunity cost of disbanding some units in Vladivostok is not that great IMO.

Although I agree that the best strategy would be IMVHO (and I have played the Soviets, it’s not that clear-cut) to move on the offensive, if you have enough supply, if only to force the IJ opponent to stall his offensive in the north, one can’t forget either that the campaign happens after one year of play. Yenki and Rashin might have very high fort levels too, not Vladivostok-high, but 5/6 are clearly possible in that timeframe. Both bases are also in good defensible terrain, and provided there are enough troops, they could hold a very long time. DW is clearly not ready to commit to a siege of Vlad right now, Andy’s move a couple days ago may have been an attempt to elicit such a response, rather than a full offensive. It takes a lot of supplies to feed an army to go conquer bases in southern Manchuria or Korea, and dividing the troops of the Vlad pocket may risk their encirclement while besieging either base.

From Andy’s POV, he can’t know your fort levels, so he may not be certain to get some quick victories - but will get heavy losses and expend supply. He also can expect more reinforcements, given your 25% PP rule : since the start of the invasion, DW, I’d guess you now have enough PP to buy at least one more division from China, which means the possibility to move three other restricted divisions. Four divisions may cut his advance and trap his armies outside the pocket, while busy assaulting Yenki or Rashin, and he will then have lost devices, supplies, and PP (although by this point, I’d say PP are not that important anymore).

Now, if supply was not as plentiful as it might be, say around 300-400k, an offensive would drain a lot of it. Add the loss of supplies, the loss of troops on an adventurous advance, the consecutive weakening of Vlad’s defenses (thereby decreasing the expected losses to the IJA during the future siege), and you may have a situation where sortying the defenders may be detrimental. Then, I can understand Andy’s move up to the frontier, then retreating. This would be a feint, meant to try and entice DW to start the offensive operations in the south.

But... it didn’t work. From the above premise, supplies would quickly dwindle, and the « siege & let wither » strategy may bear its fruits way faster than might otherwise be expected.

So, Andy’s choices in the south are rational, if one considers the supplies are short. The Soviet forces starting around Vladivostok, including the couple of bases in the neighborhood, have a total supply requirement of around 30-35k. Maybe more if he concentrated more units, possibly as much as 45-50k with troops from Khabarovsk (I don’t remember where they went). That is, per month, without any combat. The operation has started over two months (in-game) ago, so at least 100.000 supplies have been used. Probably more, if you have bombarded enough. If less (he did concede the air war after all), it not much less.

It takes time to build a good stockpile in Vlad, but you need it in order to have a resilient defense. If one is satisfied with the supply present at start, it’ll be over in six months. If the Soviet amass one million supply in Vladivostok, the « siege & let wither » strategy will fail. But less than that, and an IJ which can afford to keep 3000-4000 AV around there to prevent any offensive thoughts, or is not under the pressure of any particular time-table, then the outcome is the opposite. Given the first player’s bad performance, I wouldn’t count on him having started stockpiling supplies in Vladivostok. This would also mean more supplies in the north, to feed operations there and rebuild units.

EDIT : missed a sentence.
So, units which are disbanded now in Vladivostok, could not have enough supplies to be actually used offensively, and are clearly of no use as the siege isn’t starting. Therefore, no opportunity cost to disband them.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
, I regularly see that the concept of checking the actual ingame scenario is not well understood! [:-]
The wave of withdrawals for Stock 1 Soviets is in July 42 where 4 ID and some arty depart. The only thing that withdraws in autumn 42 is 4 NKVD regiments in Baikal region.

Guilty as charged. I think in my game as the Allies Soviet withdraws start in March of 42.[;)]

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Well done on the battle of Socotra ! Down to the bottom of the sea go his last two CVs. Wasp, with three torpedoes, HF/HD, is probably doomed.

The fact that he used his CV here mighty betray his intention to concentrate his forces in India, rather than Australia. This feeling is reinforced by the appearance of the Soviet bombers.

Thanks Ambassador. CV Wasp also took another four bomb hits in the afternoon strike and suffered two fuel explosions, so I would be pretty amazed if it survived.

Yes, I am also pretty convinced he is going all in with India. I have been scouring the sea lanes to Australia from both west and east and the amount of maritime traffic there is paltry at best. India on the other hand receives massive convoys.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
Naval Battle of Socotra

Over the last week I have been wrestling with the conundrum of the Karachi wormhole. Any convoys/task forces that enter through the wormhole will be virtually under the strong CAP (almost 300 fighters!) and naval defenses of Karachi before I can do anything about it. However, I figured there was enough distance in the hop around Socotra for me to strike out and inflict damage before Andy's convoys make it through. The issue of course was intelligence/recon, since if I get too close his naval search at Socotra would pick me up. So what I did was I kept the KB out of search range but within flank speed of the Socotra area and sent in my subs and leaned on radio intelligence for any scraps of intel that could point to significant Allied naval activity in the area. Last turn I got enough to decide to dash in and here are the results:

Congratulations on a well executed ambush! This is exactly what we JFBs live for [:)]

How was the Allied CAP? Was there any return strike? So far I assume that all your pilots are around 70-80 exp/skills?

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
Naval Battle of Socotra

Over the last week I have been wrestling with the conundrum of the Karachi wormhole. Any convoys/task forces that enter through the wormhole will be virtually under the strong CAP (almost 300 fighters!) and naval defenses of Karachi before I can do anything about it. However, I figured there was enough distance in the hop around Socotra for me to strike out and inflict damage before Andy's convoys make it through. The issue of course was intelligence/recon, since if I get too close his naval search at Socotra would pick me up. So what I did was I kept the KB out of search range but within flank speed of the Socotra area and sent in my subs and leaned on radio intelligence for any scraps of intel that could point to significant Allied naval activity in the area. Last turn I got enough to decide to dash in and here are the results:

Congratulations on a well executed ambush! This is exactly what we JFBs live for [:)]

How was the Allied CAP? Was there any return strike? So far I assume that all your pilots are around 70-80 exp/skills?

Thanks! Yes, with few exceptions my pilots are in the 70-85 exp/skill range.

I think Andy was so confident in his naval search and the fact that nothing would happen in the single turn that his ships would be on map that he never put his aircraft out of training. Not that it would likely have changed too much though I don't think. I had enough fighter escorts to punch through the CAP put up by two CVs, especially with one of them being the relatively smaller Wasp.

[Alfred]

Anyone who believes I have a superficial understanding of AE, one less sophisticated than their own, and that my posts reflect this superficiality, is greatly deluding themselves.

Over the last few days several posts in this AAR have been based on the premise that the bases where LCU disbanding is possible, were chosen by the game devs on the basis that they represent safe rear areas well away from the frontlines. This premise is wrong. From this erroneous premise has grown the view that Allied LCU disbanding at Vladivostok is not right, in fact it has been viewed as being "gamey". This view is wrong, dare I say it is both a kneejerk response and quite superficial.

1. Vladivostok has always been the dedicated LCU disbanding base for the Soviet Union.

2. Vladivostok is not a mobile base. It is physically stuck to its location. That location means that Vladivostok is never, except under one specific circumstance, not on the frontline, it is never (again except for that one specific circumstance) in a safe rear area.

3. The one circumstance when Vladivostok might be viewed as not being on the frontline is when the Solviets have captured all the built up Japanese bases in Korea and Manchukuo, and the Japanese Home Island airfields/airforce been neutralised.


I'll let the above facts sink in for a moment, to those propounding the erroneous disbanding premise.

Now let's consider some of the logical inconsistencies associated with the erroneous premise.

4. Were there any validity to the erroneous premise, no Allied player would ever (unless point 3 above applies) be able to disband LCUs without being accused of engaging in "gamey" behaviour. We all know that in the world of AE, an accusation of "gamey" behaviour is a polite form of claiming the player is engaging in unacceptable, ungentlemanly behaviour, which in some instances verges on constituting cheating. The practical ramification of holding this erroneous premise is to deny the Allied player has any right to disband Soviet LCUs at Vladivostok. Here is the logical question to ask yourself: why was Vladivostok ever made a dedicated disbanding location? Why wasn't Krasnoyarsk, which is much further back to the rear, made the dedicated LCU disbanding base for the Soviet Union?

5. When AE was released, LCU disbanding at other bases, in addition to the National Bases, was permitted. Certain conditions and costs applied but if met and acceptable, the disbanding was allowed. The rationale was publicly disclosed by Andy Mac on 26 December 2009. This meant that even though the Japanese 25th Army in early 1942 had already crossed the Johore Strait and was in Singapore fighting mano a mano with the Allied forces, if Singapore met the conditions, the Allied player could disengage LCUs from the mano a mano fighting by simply disbanding eligible units. I specifically present Singapore because Andy Mac himself acknowledged Singapore as a potential disbanding location. Any of the proponents of the erroneous premise dare to claim that Singapore was far in the rear, a world away from the frontline.

6. Patch #3 did restrict the capacity of players to disband LCUs. The public rationale for now restricting LCU disbanding to only the National Home Base, was presented by Andy Mac on 4 January 2010. The devs were concerned about player confusion and potential abuse, hence the change. It is important to comprehend the abuse they had in mind was not of disbanding per se, but the extent and imposed cost. Had the change been brought about solely by concern that disbanding should only ever occur in a rear area base, then something along the lines which ensured the expanded eligible ports for withdrawing ships (introduced in a patch) were not on the frontline, could and would have been introduced. But of course that could not be entertained if Vladivostok remained as the dedicated disbanding base for the USSR.


Let us pause for a moment for the irony of points 5 and 6 above to sink in. The dev who publicly explained the rationale, who understood what wasn't working to their satisfaction, who as the Land Team leader possessed a very powerful voice into the internal dev approval process to change the rules, is the current Allied player who stands accused, on the basis of the erroneous premise, of "gamey" behaviour. Explain to me then, remembering I'm only capable of superficial understanding and commentary, exactly what response is expected by those who have publicly stated they would take up the issue with the Allied player. Do they really believe the Allied player is going to agree his actions are improper and not consistent with the Patch #3 changes which he himself shaped? You don't entertain the possibility that he, as a dev, might not consider some of the actions taken by the Japanese player to be at least as questionable, if not more so?

Alfred

[BBfanboy]

Thanks for the much-needed context and facts Alfred!

[DesertWolf101]

Let's move on from this guys. I raised this issue to bring awareness to it as an option and to discuss my potential next moves in the game as related to it. I don't think it's a realistic move per say but I also don't think it's a gamey one either. Ultimately it's Andy and I's game, I have no real complaints, and I have already stated that I don't want to challenge him on it. Alfred's point that he is a dev is also important to remember, since that gives him a lot of credibility in terms of 'game play intent' - not to mention that his character is beyond reproach.

[DesertWolf101]

December 8-12, 1942

The pursuit of Andy's retreating Soviet armies is continuing but I royally screwed up when I did a turn when I was pretty tired and forgot to remove combat operations mode from the pursuing Japanese army. Unfortunately, this was enough to make me miss another opportunity at attacking Andy's retreating force. Too bad, but I'm still trying to get another attack in before he gets to the x3 terrain and if lucky I may have another chance to come.

Meanwhile on the other side of the map, CL Boise which was retreating from the recent KB attack was found and sunk by Japanese submarines. I also assembled a large force of A6M3a fighters for a sweep of Karachi. It got decent results at about a 3 to 1 kill ratio in my favor but I dislike losing good pilots over enemy territory so I am debating whether it is worth another go or no.

[Kull]

What's the mine situation in Karachi? Minisubs are cheap mine recon. Where possible you want a submarine in the hex being swept. It won't save all the pilots, but it's usually worth it, especially big sweeps with lots of defenders.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Kull
... Where possible you want a submarine in the hex being swept. It won't save all the pilots, but it's usually worth it, especially big sweeps with lots of defenders.

+1

Can convert a lot of MIA's to WIA's ...

[DesertWolf101]

Unfortunately Andy has all kinds of ASW craft circling around those waters and especially the hex which I suspect is also mined. I would normally send a sub there to help pick up pilots but in this case the risk to the submarine is just too high.

[DesertWolf101]

Aircraft Altitude

Up till now we have been playing with the max second maneuver band rule for aircraft which in general I have no particular problems with as I find it to be pretty balanced. Andy seems to dislike high altitude flying, pointing out (correctly) that air combat in the Pacific was heavily focused on low to mid altitudes. We are chatting about the rule and he said that while he is willing to continue abiding with the second max maneuver band rule he would prefer something simple and straightforward like a max altitude for all aircraft that is not too high. I was willing to go along with this and we settled on a max 25K altitude for all aircraft except recon.

My question for you guys is with regards to how this could potentially impact the game if at all going forward? Will it largely be the same or does this rule affect certain aircraft/variables that I need to be aware of? Please let me know if you think of anything!

[Evoken]

25k would be pretty good for Japan imo , you wont have to deal with late war strato sweeps

[29000Kevin]

From reading this AAR, I wonder what your Submarine sunk tonnage list would've looked like if you had the Submarine Tracker in the campaign since you have so far only lost 2 Submarines in the entire war for an impressive ratio kill list that even the Kriegsmarine U-Boat arm would've been jealous of. **Looks at the USS Lexington**

But 1943 is coming and the events of Black May is going to rain in for any Axis Submarine attempting to strike Allied Convoy's, the Happy times will truly be over...

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Aircraft Altitude

Up till now we have been playing with the max second maneuver band rule for aircraft which in general I have no particular problems with as I find it to be pretty balanced. Andy seems to dislike high altitude flying, pointing out (correctly) that air combat in the Pacific was heavily focused on low to mid altitudes. We are chatting about the rule and he said that while he is willing to continue abiding with the second max maneuver band rule he would prefer something simple and straightforward like a max altitude for all aircraft that is not too high. I was willing to go along with this and we settled on a max 25K altitude for all aircraft except recon.

My question for you guys is with regards to how this could potentially impact the game if at all going forward? Will it largely be the same or does this rule affect certain aircraft/variables that I need to be aware of? Please let me know if you think of anything!

2nd band or 25K ... not a lot of difference to me. Surprised he didn't want lower ...

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Evoken

25k would be pretty good for Japan imo , you wont have to deal with late war strato sweeps

Yes, I don't really see any grave consequences for me with the new rule. Might even be slightly better in the latter stages of the war.