Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: littleike
Wow! This is one of the finest answers i have ever received!
Many thanks really!
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Have you started any PBEM's yet? [&:]
ORIGINAL: littleike
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Have you started any PBEM's yet? [&:]
I feel not yet ready to do the jump but maybe soon i will !!
In the meantime thanks for your usefulness. Be sure i will contact you. [:)]
You don't have to start out with the GC. I strongly recommend doing all the smaller scenarios 1st. And be sure to play both sides. I feel the perfect way to learn is to "mirror game" them , you play one side then your opponent plays the other. At the same time the two of you set up a parallel game so that you wind up playing both sides at the same time. It gives you a lot more to think about , but allows you to comprehend both sides view of the same battle/campaign.
ORIGINAL: uncivil_servant
"So my point is , in an over long winded way , that most players today are far better than the real life "actors" were. So you need to "dog down" the system for the allies and "speed up" the playability for the Japanese to keep people playing. And I feel that if you allowed the allies to blow up every base you'd over tax Japanese engineering capability. Frankly in the early war the allies just were not that competent. They didn't practice "Sir Robin" which is a disciplined , planned , organize retreat and embraced a "run for your lives" , or "lets just get drunk, we're screwed" attitude. Not always , but often. And allies like the Dutch always seemed to be more afraid of the natives than the Japanese. "
From someone new looking in from the outside pondering taking the plunge - I understand what you're saying but an organized retreat is not leaving units in place and having everything else run to safe spots. It seems everyone just runs for the hills and calls it Brave Sir Robin - there is no organized retreating possible as:
1: So many units are restricted (Dutch islands)(Philippines) meaning one has to move heaven and earth to do a more organized DEI or Philippines defense.
2: The ability to have enemy fleets be anywhere in huge area without same ability for allies to react to that.
3. Sonar guided torpedoes for the IJ forces makes most actions with moving troops or reorganizing or putting up a fight inherently stupid. You will be sunk. Almost guaranteed.
4. The complete ineffectiveness of non-torpedo land based bombers. B-17s out of Clark scored hits on their attacks on enemy ships every time they tried (transports then Ashigari - but they only had a minimal bomb load so light damage), then at Midway they came so close to a carrier that it was was described from adjacent carrier commander as being completely obscured by the plumes of water. They couldn't sail just outside of Sydney and laugh at the attempts to attack their ships because they program makes level bombing scoring a hit a very rare thing - hence no one is afraid of allied air forces.
5. I cannot use smart tactics to save the troops in places like Bataan, whereas if they had brought supplies wit them they could have lasted much, much longer, the game makes the defeat inevitable on much the same time rate as bombing airfields uses up their food to repair them as the player is not allowed to "ignore" repairing an airfield with no planes.
6. I have to hide my air forces as high level sweeps will force me fight them instead of wisely declining to fight and letting AA guns start firing into the fighter formations, making them choose to either come down to levels where I would be willing to engage them, or exit the air space but AA, in the game, doesn't defend against sweep attacks.
7. I have to really trust the other player to 1) play through to when it isn't all IJ victory after victory and b) if what I read was true - that for some ungodly reason the IJ player can keep playing/reloading the turn they receive until they get results they are not diametrically opposed to.
(Speed limit effect with no cops - people will speed - guaranteed) Sense of fair will might win out sometimes but if it is possible to do that, I guarantee as human nature it has been done)
With the above, it is hard contemplating everything but a rout of non restricted forces. It just seems inevitable that places like India and Australia may be attacked at the whim of the IJ player no matter what strategies are implemented in defense as the software makes holding the IJ to historical gains improbable at best.
I have a hard time contemplating anything but a full on rout of forces as anything from India, Australia, Noumea, Fiji can be attacked (and latter two taken) turning the game into a painful slog - only then to have many AARs here end the moment the tide turns and land is being taken back. That and reading AARs of IJ players building more planes (and of the hand picked best varieties) than the allies which is completely mind boggling. To actually out build the Arsenal of Democracy so one cannot even count on attrition contributing to winning your war for you in the air.
Again - complete new person looking from the outside in. In my game versus the computer (first ever) there are so many times where things would go drastically worse for me it isn't funny).
1: So many units are restricted (Dutch islands)(Philippines) meaning one has to move heaven and earth to do a more organized DEI or Philippines defense.
2: The ability to have enemy fleets be anywhere in huge area without same ability for allies to react to that.
. Sonar guided torpedoes for the IJ forces makes most actions with moving troops or reorganizing or putting up a fight inherently stupid. You will be sunk. Almost guaranteed.
4. The complete ineffectiveness of non-torpedo land based bombers. B-17s out of Clark scored hits on their attacks on enemy ships every time they tried (transports then Ashigari - but they only had a minimal bomb load so light damage), then at Midway they came so close to a carrier that it was was described from adjacent carrier commander as being completely obscured by the plumes of water. They couldn't sail just outside of Sydney and laugh at the attempts to attack their ships because they program makes level bombing scoring a hit a very rare thing - hence no one is afraid of allied air forces.
5. I cannot use smart tactics to save the troops in places like Bataan, whereas if they had brought supplies wit them they could have lasted much, much longer, the game makes the defeat inevitable on much the same time rate as bombing airfields uses up their food to repair them as the player is not allowed to "ignore" repairing an airfield with no planes.
6. I have to hide my air forces as high level sweeps will force me fight them instead of wisely declining to fight and letting AA guns start firing into the fighter formations, making them choose to either come down to levels where I would be willing to engage them, or exit the air space but AA, in the game, doesn't defend against sweep attacks.
7. I have to really trust the other player to 1) play through to when it isn't all IJ victory after victory and b) if what I read was true - that for some ungodly reason the IJ player can keep playing/reloading the turn they receive until they get results they are not diametrically opposed to.
(Speed limit effect with no cops - people will speed - guaranteed) Sense of fair will might win out sometimes but if it is possible to do that, I guarantee as human nature it has been done)
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I'm not sure if this would ever be possible (I'm not a software guru) but it would significantly change the character of the game from where it now stands. For one thing it would tremendously slow down the Japanese advance. And the resource cost to Japan would be significant. As it is now , a aggressive Japanese player can sweep through the Pacific and the Indian oceans much faster and further than happened in real life. If you took that away , I think it would demoralize the Japanese players tremendously. "Why am I spending two weeks setting up the 1st turn , and spending all this time micro-managing things for such a little achievement"?
Part of the problem with this game mirroring real life (it doesn't) is that most players who do this game in PBEMs are not incompetent. They are very, very competent. Where I'm sure if one were to quantify history , they'd find something like 75% of the generals in history were not.
So the difficulty is establishing a "balanced" game as opposed to a simulator. A simulator that does everything exactly as real life will never produce the same results because EVERYONE that plays this game devotes far more study to it than the generals did in real life. Crazy isn't it? I've been fortunate (or unfortunate enough depending on your point of view) to sit down with lots of senior serving officers (Including lots of Admirals and Generals) and when the subject of the subject of strategy arose , they were usually quick to change the subject. Clausewitz and Mahan most had heard of , but hadn't studied in years , but mention the names Douhet, Jomini , Colbert , or many other writers that your average player has not only heard of , but often read , their eyes glaze over and they look at you with un asked questions in their eyes. What they really want to ask is "Who?". But instead say "yeah. And how about them Red Soxs?". [:(]
But they CAN tell you what forms to use , how to get promoted (AKA "knowing what blocks to get checked") and the latest per diem rates. The really clever ones are up to date on the latest "ethics regs". Generals who glory in military strategy and history today are limited to a few recent examples like Swarzkoft and Franks. Post graduate degrees among such officers are MBA's , political science and economics , not history or lord forbid "military history". My experience has been that the average senior NCO knows far more about military history and strategy that their senior leaders. You are far more likely to see a board war game in a NCO barracks than a BOQ. And "official wargames" are less a test of battle and more of a Choreographed dance which ensures that "everyone" plays by scripting it and forcing players to follow the script. (This is nothing new , both the Japanese and Americans followed "scripted" war games right up till and in the Japanese case , through the war. (The famous pre-midway wargame).
So my point is , in an over long winded way , that most players today are far better than the real life "actors" were. So you need to "dog down" the system for the allies and "speed up" the playability for the Japanese to keep people playing. And I feel that if you allowed the allies to blow up every base you'd over tax Japanese engineering capability. Frankly in the early war the allies just were not that competent. They didn't practice "Sir Robin" which is a disciplined , planned , organize retreat and embraced a "run for your lives" , or "lets just get drunk, we're screwed" attitude. Not always , but often. And allies like the Dutch always seemed to be more afraid of the natives than the Japanese.
Just my 2 cents. [:)]
ORIGINAL: wdolson
In the real world if the Allies had the sort of knowledge that an Allied player starts with, they probably could have run a fairly effective Sir Robin strategy that would have stopped Japan at a smaller empire than they achieved.
Bill
ORIGINAL: wdolson
True to some degree, however the Japanese had very good intel on the state of the British Far East Empire. There were a number of turncoat Indians in sensitive places who bought into the Japanese Co-prosperity sphere PR and gave the Japanese very accurate information. I believe there were also people in the DEI and the Philippines who sold out too.
The intel on most pre-war Japanese bases was very thin. On the other hand Japanese agents were able to turn locals and gather intel on their own for many Allied bases in the Pacific.
However a Japanese player in game can know more about the Allies than the Japanese actually knew in the real war.
BTW, your avatar looks like Carlos Mencia with a large air brush in his mouth.
Bill
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.
And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can. [:D]
ORIGINAL: rook749
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.
And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can. [:D]
I could not agree with this more[&o][&o][&o]. The US Carrier fleet can win a decisive Midway type battle vs the Combined Fleet if the following can be arranged (the more the better).
1. The Combined Fleet is forced to support an attack at a groups of islands with interlocking airfields and deployed Fighter cover of 75 - 100 fighters. They don't all have to be at the same island rotating them in and out also works. The more the better - you don't even need bombers just fighters and surface forces you are willing to lose.
2. The Combined Fleet is forced to fight for several days giving away is location, takings combat losses, operational losses and adding Pilot Fatigue.
3. The Allies have a superior search grind and interior lines of defense.
4. The Allies have been able to whittle away at the pilots of Combined Fleet over the course of several such engagements as noted in #2 above.
5. The Allies have worked hard to increase pilot training and get this pilots to the front.
6. The American CV's are massed in taffy's with their best leaders. Everyone has a different view of the best taffy but this still must be done. [:D]
7. Each American CV has an extra Marine Fighter air unit on board.
8. They American CV's attack after 2 - 4 days of the Combined Fleet fighting in an area(see #2).
This can be done even as early as March of 1942 or it could take longer or never come if he never hits one of these defensive points. You can only make three to five of the points and his invasion path could take him away from all of them.....
It takes making multiple defensive points and good positioning of your carriers but it's worth trying as the Allies.
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: rook749
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.
And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can. [:D]
I could not agree with this more[&o][&o][&o]. The US Carrier fleet can win a decisive Midway type battle vs the Combined Fleet if the following can be arranged (the more the better).
1. The Combined Fleet is forced to support an attack at a groups of islands with interlocking airfields and deployed Fighter cover of 75 - 100 fighters. They don't all have to be at the same island rotating them in and out also works. The more the better - you don't even need bombers just fighters and surface forces you are willing to lose.
2. The Combined Fleet is forced to fight for several days giving away is location, takings combat losses, operational losses and adding Pilot Fatigue.
3. The Allies have a superior search grind and interior lines of defense.
4. The Allies have been able to whittle away at the pilots of Combined Fleet over the course of several such engagements as noted in #2 above.
5. The Allies have worked hard to increase pilot training and get this pilots to the front.
6. The American CV's are massed in taffy's with their best leaders. Everyone has a different view of the best taffy but this still must be done. [:D]
7. Each American CV has an extra Marine Fighter air unit on board.
8. They American CV's attack after 2 - 4 days of the Combined Fleet fighting in an area(see #2).
This can be done even as early as March of 1942 or it could take longer or never come if he never hits one of these defensive points. You can only make three to five of the points and his invasion path could take him away from all of them.....
It takes making multiple defensive points and good positioning of your carriers but it's worth trying as the Allies.
Once there is fighter parity, it (USN winning a CV battle) depends largely on individual settings for each player's task forces. The USN can even take a tactical loss if they bag a few of the IJN CVs - the ones that come later just aren't as good. They're still CVs, mind you.
I bolded #1 because that would be an enormous strategic error on the part of the Japanese player. The Japanese player should move quickly enough and decisively enough that the Allies are never able to establish this sort of defensive position at a piece of ground that Japan wants. If you run into a strong Allied defensive position, it's best to take a good hard look. There's no need to start the war of attrition early, in the first 2/3 of 1942. After that, unless the Allies have no CVs, Japan really can't continue to conduct offensive operations. And even supposing minimal Allied CV airpower, can Japan sustain offensive operations logistically? Is it worth it? I can think of a few things that would be (plundering Calcutta or Ceylon for any supplies/fuel shipped in that aren't properly protected), but those require mistakes on the part of the Allied player.
