The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[Canoerebel]

P-47D25s have the legs to sweep Nagasaki (and maybe Fukuoka), but they don't perform well. They're too scarce and too necessary to base defense to risk in such a manner.

So the Corsairs will be the working mule of this campaign, with Mustangs, Lightnings and Thunderbolts serving only in select situations, when I think they can overwhelm a fragile enemy CAP.

[Canoerebel]

Regarding what's kosher and what isn't, many years ago I offered this test: Could it/would it have been done in the real war? If not, is there a counter to it? If the answer to either question is in the affirmative it's fare game for the game.

I've offered before that the single most significant unrealistic tactic of the game is the magic 24-hour flank speed carrier run while the opposition ships are frozen into immobility. Using flank speed, KB can move roughly 800 miles in one day. Sometimes those carriers may be under close observation. In the real war, the opposition commander would have ordered all vulnerable shipping to flee as soon as reports of enemy carriers on the move started coming in. But because of the way the game works, those orders can't be issued. The carriers move those 800 miles plus the additional eight-hex strike range, meaning shipping that was 1000 miles distant when the magic move commenced can be hit...and then never did the slightest thing about it.

I have no problem with that. Under the right circumstances I would use it myself. John has used it many times in this game. It's just an aspect of the game. It couldn't have happened in the real war....but there is a counter to it. Deploy picket ships and always keep in mind the need to maintain a thousand mile cushion, if at all possible. Sometimes it isn't. So sometimes we willingly assume the risk. And sometimes we pay for it.

That's stealing home. It's part of the game. Nobody complains about it.

[MakeeLearn]

P-47D25s have the legs to sweep Nagasaki (and maybe Fukuoka), but they don't perform well.
They're too scarce and too necessary to base defense to risk in such a manner.

Too bad...so sad...

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

P-47D25s have the legs to sweep Nagasaki (and maybe Fukuoka), but they don't perform well.
They're too scarce and too necessary to base defense to risk in such a manner.

Too bad...so sad...

Whoa! Are you planning on moving your big unit to close that hexside and prevent those impressive assets from escaping? Gotta prevent the breakout to keep the picture from getting NFW. [:'(]

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

P-47D25s have the legs to sweep Nagasaki (and maybe Fukuoka), but they don't perform well.
They're too scarce and too necessary to base defense to risk in such a manner.

Too bad...so sad...

Whoa! Are you planning on moving your big unit to close that hexside and prevent those impressive assets from escaping? Gotta prevent the breakout to keep the picture from getting NFW. [:'(]

They were good "sweepers" until the 40mm Wooden Stake AA was rolled out.

[Capt. Harlock]

But this is a case of opportunity knocking. The only unit I have available within a week's traveling distance is part of an RN base force. Most of the base force was carried by air to coastal China. This is the "equipment" detail marching cross country to catch up. If I detach this cadre to force the river crossing, at whatever the cost, there is a chance I can then move an army out of Canton that will be strong enough to take Hong Kong.

If I don't try this gambit it will take weeks to bring up troops, as they'll have to march around Canton at length.

Like the suiciding of the already-battered 1st Minnesota during the second day of Gettysburg -- when there's nothing else at hand and no time, you use what you have.

[Barb]

One more comment regarding the BF fragment on hex side-control ... IRL, when the situation was desperate, even the cooks and typists were thrown into the line to help plug the lines. Regardless of unit, or equipment, or training. So few AA guns and trucks on way to rejoin their parent unit could be easily re-routed by couple of MPs and thrown into the line - even if that meant "manning" a several mile long "gap". Of course this would not be a permanent solution and they should be relieved as soon as possible by some combat unit.

Of course the game simulates this as a 40-mile wide gap, but IRL you would have combat troops approaching from the wings, so probably leaving the gap just a few miles wide. That could be a crucial road, or a bridge - that could be easily blocked by several well sited AA guns and guns prepared for direct fire.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I've offered before that the single most significant unrealistic tactic of the game is the magic 24-hour flank speed carrier run while the opposition ships are frozen into immobility. Using flank speed, KB can move roughly 800 miles in one day. Sometimes those carriers may be under close observation. In the real war, the opposition commander would have ordered all vulnerable shipping to flee as soon as reports of enemy carriers on the move started coming in.

Strictly speaking, you can have this ingame with the usage of TF threat tolerance levels. And it works, TFs react to unspotted carriers and move out of the way if they have enough mobility

[Canoerebel]

Yes but that's an imperfect solution. Low threat tolerance TFs won't react until the enemy carriers are pretty close - often close enough to be within air range. Can you image relying on threat tolerance setting to manage risk to big transport TFs or comparatively smaller carrier TFs?

[Mike McCreery]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yes but that's an imperfect solution. Low threat tolerance TFs won't react until the enemy carriers are pretty close - often close enough to be within air range. Can you image relying on threat tolerance setting to manage risk to big transport TFs or comparatively smaller carrier TFs?

I always use absolute. It ensures my transport fleets dont do anything stupid ever. Well, they do all the time but because I tell them to, not because the computer tells them to move in some random pattern.

[AcePylut]

Could it/would it have been done in the real war?


Could you you have major unescorted convoys within 800 miles of a fully armed and operational KB? YEs. Would you? No.

Could the US roll around around with every carrier within a 40mile radius of each other? Yes. Would they? No.

[Canoerebel]

That list is endless:

Could Japan have had KB in the DEI while the Allies were taking Luzon, Formosa, and Coastal China? Yes. Would they have? No.

Could the Japanese Army and Navy cooperated? Well...no. Would they have? Well...no.

Could Japan have rebased Netties at 500 miles and then flown offensive missions at max range that same day? No. Did they? No.

Meaning: there are all kinds of abstractions in the game that imperfectly represent the real war. That's just the way it is.

By the same token, if the Allied had faced an uber Japanese air power with (seemingly) unlimited air frames that equaled or exceeded what the Allies had in late 1944, and if the Allies had opportunities to penetrate deep into enemy territory, would they have adapted the necessary doctrine to make it possible? Of course.

Note here that I am not complaining about any of the tactics employed by John. They are part of the game. And there are counters available to me.

I know that John is irritated about Death Star's size. In my opinion that's nonsense, just like it would be for me to have complained about his magic 24-hour headstart carrier raids in the Gulf of Carpentaria a week ago or in the Bay of Bengal two years ago or whenever.

But the test is objective and it does work good. Here's one application: Could Japan have gone hunting for Saratoga in port in San Diego on December 7, 1941? No. Would Japan have? It couldn't have. Is there a counter strategy by the Allies? No.

By that test, a Japanese raid on San Diego on December 7 would be an unfair tactic. But nobody does something that unsporting.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Barb

One more comment regarding the BF fragment on hex side-control ... IRL, when the situation was desperate, even the cooks and typists were thrown into the line to help plug the lines. Regardless of unit, or equipment, or training. So few AA guns and trucks on way to rejoin their parent unit could be easily re-routed by couple of MPs and thrown into the line - even if that meant "manning" a several mile long "gap". Of course this would not be a permanent solution and they should be relieved as soon as possible by some combat unit.

Of course the game simulates this as a 40-mile wide gap, but IRL you would have combat troops approaching from the wings, so probably leaving the gap just a few miles wide. That could be a crucial road, or a bridge - that could be easily blocked by several well sited AA guns and guns prepared for direct fire.

The entire hex diameter is 46 statute miles wide, so each hex side would only be ~ 15 statute miles. But your point is still good. [:)]

[AcePylut]

his is a fun: Could the Chinese Nationalists and Chinese Communists worked together on a large scale? Well...no. Would they have? Well...not really. Wouldn’t it be grand if the Nationalists and Communists were not allowed to be “one” China.

I don’t really have an issue with the possibility of an “800 mile warp” by the KB. Plenty of ways to avoid it – namely, don’t run convoys in range of detection, and treat any KB within 20 hexes of a major convoy as a serious threat.

I’m not sure if the tactic of “putting all your carriers in 1 hex with 1000 other ships” was adequately considered by the devs. It is what it is, I don’t have a problem with it. If I know all your carriers are “here”, then I know they’re not “there”. The thing that should/could/maybe be done (too late at this point in AE’s development) is to add a “ship stacking limit” to the hex… where each hex can “stack” this-many ships (be that by tonnage, or displacement, length, whatever). If you go over that limit, there is an increased chance of ship to ship collision… and this chance increases exponentially as the number of ships in the hex increase.

I don’t like the “rebase and fly that day” aspect of AE, but it “is what it is”. I think adding some code that “disabled missions the day of rebasing” would be a good thing.

I think at this point, we’ve all accepted what AE does, and that provides a great game to play. Not thqat you are, but complaining that “you can or can’t do this or that – and that could/would/should never happen” is missing the point. None of us want a “real” simulation where we have to determine exactly how many beans, bullets, and buttwipe each soldier in each squad of every combat unit “gets” and make sure that each dockyard loading supply is loading that specific bullet for that soldiers rifle. No one wants to make sure that each British soldiers has their “pasta point” less they suffer a decrease in morale.

[Canoerebel]

I've never had all my carriers in a single hex.

Right now, four fleet carriers and about 15 CVE and CVL are elsewhere. That's been the case pretty much throughout the game.

But I do have a heckuva lot of carriers in a single hex. There would be plenty of room for them there and doctrine/necessity calls for it, as much as doctrine calls for (or encourages) the Japanese Army and Navy to coordinate.

We've agreed to play a scenario in which Japan gets a beefed up navy and air force - the latter much, much stronger in ratio to the Allies than what it was in the real war. The disparity was so great that John has since modified the mod considerably, adding additional Allied fighters to the pools, allowing players to purchase more fighters by purchasing using political points, enhancing political point accrual, etc. None of those "fixes" was retroactive. We're playing the original mod. Under these circumstances it behooves the Allies to play a much tighter defense than happened in the real war. And most of you guys know that about all I've done with Death Star is use it defensively. There have been nearly zero offensive raid. She's simply been shepherding and protecting the merchantmen and combat ships in an environment where Japan is probably 5x more powerful than it was in the real war by late 1944.

[alimentary]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
The entire hex diameter is 46 statute miles wide, so each hex side would only be ~ 15 statute miles.

If the corner to opposite corner hex diameter is 46 miles then each face is 23 miles in length.
If the face to opposite face hex diameter is 46 miles then each face is approximately 30 miles in length.

[HansBolter]

The hex distance would have to be measured face to face as that is the direction of movement regulated by the distances of 40 nautical miles and 46 statute miles.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


I always use absolute. It ensures my fleets dont do anything stupid ever. Well... because I tell them to, not because the computer tells them

Exactly.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yes but that's an imperfect solution. Low threat tolerance TFs won't react until the enemy carriers are pretty close - often close enough to be within air range. Can you image relying on threat tolerance setting to manage risk to big transport TFs or comparatively smaller carrier TFs?

Low threat would be the wrong setting to use to avoid enemy air power.

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yes but that's an imperfect solution. Low threat tolerance TFs won't react until the enemy carriers are pretty close - often close enough to be within air range. Can you image relying on threat tolerance setting to manage risk to big transport TFs or comparatively smaller carrier TFs?

Low threat would be the wrong setting to use to avoid enemy air power.

You big TEASE [;)]....

"Routing Control" for reactions to ALL enemy air threats?
"Threat Tolerance" only for reactions to enemy "ship/sub" threats?