Bigbaba y Ike99

[Ike99]

I've got a game going with JoeD and there are no house rules, though we did say that things would get kept in a historical sense of things and this isn't our first game this way. To date we've had 0 issues with what has been done and the games are very enjoyable.

I´ve played almost all my games as both the Japan and the Allies and have never seen a need for a houserule to keep the game from being broken and out of balance. You just have to play a good game.

[anarchyintheuk]

Been a while since I played but the only hrs I used were no Corsairs in cvtfs and no recon by submarine transport. Those were for realism purposes not play balance tho. The Corsair one was negotiable because of the mistaken Hellcat starting dates.

Enjoying the aar, sorry to interrupt.

[bigbaba]

hmm, did i understodd this correctly? you can put corsair fighter groups on your CV as soon as they get available?

if thats so, you can start pray to your emperor, my dear gaucho.[;)]

one note about house rules:

in my next game, my only house rule will be no carrier night operations. why? because thats unrealistic for 1942. i mean come on...some japs pilots tried to land st the yorktown at night at coral sea because they thought thats the zuikaku/shokaku. they were realy blind at night without radar and night operation capable carriers in 1942.

but as i said, that will be in my NEXT PBEM. this one is started without any house rules and thats fine.

[Ike99]

because thats unrealistic for 1942. i mean come on...some japs pilots tried to land st the yorktown at night at coral sea because they thought thats the zuikaku/shokaku. they were realy blind at night without radar and night operation capable carriers in 1942.

Japanese pilots were practiced with night carrier landings and their carriers were equipted for such with the chakkan shidoto in 1942.

On the losses from Coral Sea at night, weren´t these planes shot up after returning from a battle?

[bigbaba]

not realy, ike.

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/coral_sea/doc.asp

To his chagrin he was unable to launch a strike until late that afternoon. The Japanese pilots missed Task Force 17 and on the return flight they were intercepted by American fighters and badly mauled. Further heavy loss resulted from their inability to find their carriers in the dark and only four aircraft landed of the 27 despatched.

[Ike99]

Further heavy loss resulted from their inability to find their carriers in the dark and only four aircraft landed of the 27 despatched.

This sounds like a navigation error on someones part to me. Something very easy to do over the ocean be it daylight or dark. Not because they couldn´t land on the carriers.

I´m thinking for night operations the idea was to get in the general area and pick up a radio beam to guide them in to the specific location of the carriers. But this is a guess. If this is the way it was though someone must have went pretty far off course. Either the Japanese task force commander felt it neccessary to make a big change in course for whatever reason and leave them to run out of fuel or the flight leader made a really big navigation area.

But as I said this is something easier to do than most people think over a wide open ocean, daylight or dark with no landmarks and using only instrumentation.

However Japanese pilots were definately trained and capable of performing carrier operations at night quite proficiently from what I´ve recently read.

Interrogation of: Captain YAMAOKA, M., IJN, Operations Officer, Staff 5th Air Flotilla at Battle of CORAL SEA, 7-8 May 1942.

Interrogated by: Captain C. Shands, USN.

Q. Had your pilots been trained to land on the carriers at night?

A. Yes, about 2/3 of all pilots were thoroughly trained at night.

Q. When did you first start night carrier operations?

A. About 1933.

Q. Was one carrier used for night operation or did you have pilots on each carrier?

A. Each carrier had a few night pilots at first, then increased. About 2/3 of all pilots on each carrier were thoroughly trained in night carrier operation. About 1/3 were familiar but not so well trained.

Q. How did you land at night?

A. We used a green and red light which were lined up for a flight path to come aboard. We also used a signalman.

Q. Did he control the speed during the landing?

A. No, after a night battle, only signal used was O.K. and should land, or that he was not O.K. and should be waved off; in which case he made another approach. During the training more signals were used to indicate speed and altitude. These signals were given by blinker guns at night.

Q. What accidents incurred in training?

A. Thorough basic training was given at night on land; therefore, we had very few accidents in night landings aboard ship.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


Yes Todd, bomb the Hell out of him. He´ll have no problems bombing you from 100ft with 4E´s later in the game I´m thinking. [;)]

Thank you for demonstrating your mental prowess, or should I say lack thereof.

Unlike you, I don't need to be restricted from doing unrealistic things since I am not the type to exploit them in the first place. I have no desire to degenerate to your level.

[Ike99]

Thank you for demonstrating your mental prowess, or should I say lack thereof.

Unlike you, I don't need to be restricted from doing unrealistic things since I am not the type to exploit them in the first place. I have no desire to degenerate to your level.

F-U-C-K Y-O-U

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Thank you for demonstrating your mental prowess, or should I say lack thereof.

Unlike you, I don't need to be restricted from doing unrealistic things since I am not the type to exploit them in the first place. I have no desire to degenerate to your level.

F-U-C-K Y-O-U

Sorry, I don't swing that way Ike.

[bigbaba]

stop that flame war please. for some reason, ike decided to end the game what i can not understand and find very pity.

i want to thank you ike because i learnd a lot of new things i would do better in the future in our game (and my first PBEM) and i must admit, that overall, you was in a better position at the end. i can not understand your reasons to end the game that way, but i respect them.

[tocaff]

Ike

You are totally out of line and violating forum policies.  Nothing deserves that kind of response.  Grow up and stop being such an idiot.  Enjoy the game and behave yourself.

[RGIJN]

Why has this most illustrative AAR come to such an abrupt end???
I think IKE has to throw a light upon this... Come on, tell us whats wrong with that game?! At least your opponent deserves kinda explanation.

[Ike99]

You are totally out of line and violating forum policies.

Yes Todd, you are right. I did break the forum no profanity policy, I did this knowingly it was in violation of the forum profanity policy. So I have no problem in accepting the punishment they wish to give me.

I do bring to your and their attention that this was in direct responce to Hans breaking the exact same forum policy in the exact same manner directed against me, and this was initial to my provoked responce.

So I am big enough to accept my punishemnt. I wonder if Hans is.

[tocaff]

Ike

As usual you just don't get it.  Stop acting like a child.  If Hans told you to jump off a bridge would you?  If somebody steals a car does that make it OK for you to do it too?  You have no moral high ground here and I, for one, will not be sorry if you end up banned. 

[Ike99]

Why has this most illustrative AAR come to such an abrupt end???

I think IKE has to throw a light upon this... Come on, tell us whats wrong with that game?! At least your opponent deserves kinda explanation.

I have the impression that Bigbaba is feeling me using my carriers in night operation is giving me an unfair advantage and ¨breaking¨ the game for him.

If it were only that easy!

Indeed in his request for a new game his one houserule was no night carrier operations. But if he feels this way, he feels this way and is not a bad reflection on him.

But it does ruin the legitamacy of this game. ¨He won because those night carrier base attacks¨ kind of thing. But this is not coming from him, he says he is ¨OK¨ with it. But he does agree with others it is ¨breaking¨ the game and as I pointed out in his new game request his sole house rule was this.

So why keep him in the commitment if he feels the game is not on the level.

I think if we switched sides though he would see it is not as easy as it seems. I always play no houserules with both Allies and Japan and will continue the same.

[tocaff]

But for a change you are only telling a 1/2 truth.  As Hans has said if you keep pulling this stuff you will hit the wall where nobody will play against you.  

[RGIJN]

Hey IKE, your opponent felt quite surprised of your surrender. I think he never asked you to cease this game due to these night carrier attacks, though he got screwed of them.

[Ike99]

Hey IKE, your opponent felt quite surprised of your surrender. I think he never asked you to cease this game due to these night carrier attacks, though he got screwed of them.

Bigbaba went into this match knowing full well it was a no house rules, no holds banned, Vale Tudo match...and so did you. Don´t give me this he got screwed thing.

bigbaba1111-as we say in germany: "nur die harten kommen im garten" what means something like "only the strongest men will get the price."...but i am sure, ike is planing something dirty and hope to avoid surprises.

RGIJN-Like to use that adage too.literally, it means "just the hard-nosed will make for heavens door" (instead of Belial´s kingdom).

Besides, did I get his three carriers by night attack, did I raid his transports filling up on the Australian coast by night attack?...does this look like getting screwed on night attacks to you? The last turn...

Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 85
A6M3 Zero x 18
D3A Val x 96
B5N Kate x 129

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 58
Beaufighter VIC x 3
P-39D Airacobra x 39
P-40E Kittyhawk x 7
P-40E Warhawk x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 24 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 10 destroyed
D3A Val x 6 destroyed
B5N Kate x 12 destroyed
B5N Kate x 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 23 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9 damaged
Beaufighter VIC x 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 25 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 9 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk x 2 destroyed

CPO V.Nojima of CII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 5

LT M. Hidaka of CII-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

Allied Ships
DD Woodworth, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AK Etamin, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
DD Fletcher, Bomb hits 1
CA Astoria, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA San Diego, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Meredith, Bomb hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP President Monroe, Bomb hits 1, on fire
APD Little, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Wilkes, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP President Adams, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy
damage
DD Hughes, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AK Mercury, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Pierce, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Neville, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Largs Bay, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP Fuller, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Almaack, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------

I did not complain about the 25 PT boats in Port Moresby. I did not complain about being ship bombed at 100 ft. I did not complain about carrier aircraft being based in Port Moresby. I had no problems with him putting his Corsairs on the carriers. And if he had night bombed me from his carriers I wouldn´t have complained either. You learn, you adjust, you look for solutions to a problem. What happens is your gameplay gets very, very sharp. It´s the only way to play IMHO.

But I did not come and protest anything. I understand the meaning of ¨no house rules¨

So it looks very bad for you, and others, to come here talking about how he got screwed by night bombing. Especially when the same tactic was availabale to him. It is not my fault he did not think of this tactic and could not find the solution for it. But as I said before, if he felt he was being treated unfairly with this tactic then the best course to take was to end the game and he can play with someone using that house rule. So that´s what I did.

Let´s see here, re-running turns to change results. Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing politics, hmmmm...screwed by night bombings...

Now peoples, I´m not going to apologise for being a good player. And I do not apologise for any tactics I use. Check your excuses and complaints in at the door with the ¨no house rules¨ sign. If you can´t do that or you can´t stand to lose a game then don´t play Ike99 because odds are you´re not going to win.

[RGIJN]

You got me wrong. I didn´t meant it in a personal way, not of that "you did something forbidden" kind. Rather he FELT against the odds whith these night attacks. (not treated unfairly) But as I´ve said before - he did not ask for rules or changes in your game style what you may have read between the lines erroneously. Nor did I.

[bigbaba]

i must correct ike in some points:

I did not complain about the 25 PT boats in Port Moresby. I did not complain about being ship bombed at 100 ft. I did not complain about carrier aircraft being based in Port Moresby. I had no problems with him putting his Corsairs on the carriers.

so, 25 PT in a port, and carrier aircrafts operating from land bases are unrealistic? beside that, i never set the naval attacks on 100 ft. simply because i saw, that even 1000 ft. was deadly enough for the bombers because of the warships AA-power.

your reason to end the game how you did was NOT my request, that this night attacks from carriers should be fixed in future, because i had no problem with this attacks in our game and you know that.

you told me your reason in your "game ending" e-mail you wrote to me:

¨Don´t worry guys...¨¨ ? Ahhh so you want to be their buddys? Fine, go ahead.

You agreed to no house rules before the game...yes or no? So complaing about it and stirring up the right wing neo cons to attack me is underhanded. I don´t need it.

you brought the politic inside the game and called me a "far right neo con" sympathizer only because i wrote "its ok guys. the days of ikes carrier supremacy are over soon. [;)]"

in this topic:

tm.asp?m=1813163

so, the night attacks have nothing to do with your ceasing. the reason seems to be, that you see everywhere "far right neo cons" although there is no reason to title me as one.

after reading a former AAR between you and nomad i decided to keep out politics from our game. unfortunately without success.

and there is no need to post your last turn here, because i allready said, that you was in a better position at the end of the game...mostly (but not only) because i was not able to keep a huge airforce in PM because of the regular night attacks from KB. even 60 FB at CAP and at the same hight (5000 ft.)were not able to shoot down more then 1-2 japs planes.

so yes, this night attacks played a huge role in your success, but there were OK to me, because we had no house rules. i simply wanted to hold out at PM (what was possible) and put my corsairs in my CV and end your night attacks.