2Day AAR Kid vs. EL TOJO

[siRkid]

Well it was fun and I was sorry to see it end. Things were just heating up at Tarawa. I had all my carriers moving in for a huge carrier battle. What corrupted our game is the patch we are testing - nothing to do with save files.

I always take heat for my aggressive game style (Ron tired to get me relived during UV beta testing to) but I sure do have a lot of fun. My regrets are the loss of my BBs while trying to send them on bombardment missions and that dang sneaky raid that cost me so many merchants. I have alos learned not to let the AI handle China 100% of the time.

I was able to get enough oil and resources out of the Dutch East Indies to keep Austral running for months, I managed to put a full division and support troops in PM with 64K of supplies, I had Tarawa firmly in my hands. My raiders were raising heII and I still had all my carrier.

[Nikademus]

correction....u were about to lose your carriers.

courtasy of EL TOJO. (who never does anything wrong. Those missing garrison units were supposed to have been handled by an underling!)

[:'(]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Kid

Well it was fun and I was sorry to see it end. Things were just heating up at Tarawa. I had all my carriers moving in for a huge carrier battle. What corrupted our game is the patch we are testing - nothing to do with save files.

I always take heat for my aggressive game style (Ron tired to get me relived during UV beta testing to) but I sure do have a lot of fun. My regrets are the loss of my BBs while trying to send them on bombardment missions and that dang sneaky raid that cost me so many merchants. I have alos learned not to let the AI handle China 100% of the time.

I was able to get enough oil and resources out of the Dutch East Indies to keep Austral running for months, I managed to put a full division and support troops in PM with 64K of supplies, I had Tarawa firmly in my hands. My raiders were raising heII and I still had all my carrier.

aaack... i take it this means the patch will take longer to come out [:(]

[Oliver Heindorf]

the time it takes when the patch comes out is not important


but they got thier game corrupted by a testing of a patch and this leads me to fears that all my pbem games/ai games will got corrupted as well

[siRkid]

There are other issues involved. So far the patch should not affect your save games.

[Oliver Heindorf]

Kid, I hope you are right [:)]

PS : thnx for the great Tutorial, very helpful for me ! & thnx for this AAR, was pure fun to read it, a shame that it has ended this way

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Kid

Well it was fun and I was sorry to see it end. Things were just heating up at Tarawa. I had all my carriers moving in for a huge carrier battle. What corrupted our game is the patch we are testing - nothing to do with save files.

I always take heat for my aggressive game style (Ron tired to get me relived during UV beta testing to) but I sure do have a lot of fun. My regrets are the loss of my BBs while trying to send them on bombardment missions and that dang sneaky raid that cost me so many merchants. I have alos learned not to let the AI handle China 100% of the time.

I was able to get enough oil and resources out of the Dutch East Indies to keep Austral running for months, I managed to put a full division and support troops in PM with 64K of supplies, I had Tarawa firmly in my hands. My raiders were raising heII and I still had all my carrier.

LOL I'm such a prick, eh Rick?[:D] Was that when you used poor merchant seamen as decoy cannon fodder? [:D]Nik's point about the 3-1 auto victory toning down costly losses due to very aggressive play is valid. Prior to your AAR, I wondered about the utility of this auto victory rule.

I still like the idea of the AI assuming control in a command zone if player suffers too heavy losses/loses too many strategic bases within them. Only with the ability to reassume control through huge PP payment of course. Gawd, no worse setback than having the AI control ops for 6 months whenused to direct control. LOL

[moses]

page 202 of manual says 4-1 is required for auto-victory in 1943. Has this changed? I note that the historical Japan position in May 43 almost gives them a 3-1 ratio in base points. In my current game I have had some favorable early results as Japan (2 US CV's sunk at no cost to my carriers) which make surpasssing Japans historical results seem quite possible. Frankly winning with 3-1 seems unfair as I would just need to avoid major errors and use my overwhelming carrier advantage to take a few extra bases. Then I slink away with the automatic victory before the allied player gets to use his replacment carriers.

A 4-1 ratio indicates that the allied player has truly been stomped and maybe the game should end at that point. 3-1 seems to easy at this point. so is it 3-1 or 4-1 in 1943?

[brisd]

The manual clearly states under para 16.21: "Automatic Victory in 1943: In 1943, if one player has 4 times the victory total of the other player, the game will end." In 1944 the auto victory is 3:1, 1945 2:1. Seems right to me! [8D]

[Nikademus]

I still would have won. Four sunken USN carriers would have been nice pointage [8D]

[Tophat]

This is somewhat disturbing........4 to 1 in 43'.........hmmmn.Well right now its dec 25th 41' and i'm having my butt handed to me in a pbem game with moses.Lost Lex and enterprise between Midway and wake on day 3!!!

[Nikademus]

to get behind 4:1 would require alot more losses than 2-3 CV's by themselves. As long as you dont lose the rest of your fleet and half the merchant marine you should be ok

[Mr.Frag]

Keep in mind that a 4:1 ratio is a very large difference in score.

By '43, most allied scores will be over 10,000 due to losses inflicted.

For Japan to win, they will need 40,000! points.

Loosing ALL the Allied CV's is only 2,500 points.

You have a LONG ways to go.

Really, if you look at the VP levels for the prime bases, the only way that Japan can kick in this is to capture a couple of these major bases.