Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Jocke, I think what is happening to you is an illustration of something that needs to be said. Heretical to JFBs I suspect, but it needs to be said.

Giving the Japanese player a non-historical start is the MOST advantageous give in the pre-game set-up. I would even venture to say it is more of a give than the Allies getting non-dud torpedoes. At minimum it ought not be given without a give-back of commensurate value i.e. non-dud torpedoes.

The game is VP-balanced on a presumption that PH is attacked. This puts the KB weeks away from the general bug-out in the west, and both gives the Allies valuable ships to be used in the balance of 1942 in the "hard months", as well as prevent Japan from reaping hundreds or thousands of VPs at literally no risk to themselves.

Hindsight tells JFBs that the PH strike is a poor ROI. The carriers aren't there, a fact RL IJN officers did not know but JFBs do with 100% certainty. Also, five years of game life have shown overwhelmingly that the pre-war USN BBs are as much OOB liabilities as useful. And a typical game-PH-strike sinks 2-3 with the others simply being a shipyard clog, but not a VP well for Japan.

As you're seeing, a MKB, combined with a split KB (it fears nothing in the DEI in December), gives three invulnerable naval axes able to plug the bug-out routes and simply harvest the Allies, after crippling the USN submarine force in the west for months at Manila. The Mersing move makes Rangoon fall weeks or months early, which opens the Irrawaddy Valley to invasion that much earlier too, before PPs can accumulate enough to get any Indian help into Burma. And so forth.

Japan ignoring the eastern half of the map tilts history on its head. Non-historical start as an option is fine if the players agree, and especially if the Japan player is of lower skill than the Allied. It's a huge crutch for a lower-ability Japan player. In the hands of a Mr. Kane? You gave away the store.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Jocke, I think what is happening to you is an illustration of something that needs to be said. Heretical to JFBs I suspect, but it needs to be said.

Giving the Japanese player a non-historical start is the MOST advantageous give in the pre-game set-up. I would even venture to say it is more of a give than the Allies getting non-dud torpedoes. At minimum it ought not be given without a give-back of commensurate value i.e. non-dud torpedoes.

The game is VP-balanced on a presumption that PH is attacked. This puts the KB weeks away from the general bug-out in the west, and both gives the Allies valuable ships to be used in the balance of 1942 in the "hard months", as well as prevent Japan from reaping hundreds or thousands of VPs at literally no risk to themselves.

Hindsight tells JFBs that the PH strike is a poor ROI. The carriers aren't there, a fact RL IJN officers did not know but JFBs do with 100% certainty. Also, five years of game life have shown overwhelmingly that the pre-war USN BBs are as much OOB liabilities as useful. And a typical game-PH-strike sinks 2-3 with the others simply being a shipyard clog, but not a VP well for Japan.

As you're seeing, a MKB, combined with a split KB (it fears nothing in the DEI in December), gives three invulnerable naval axes able to plug the bug-out routes and simply harvest the Allies, after crippling the USN submarine force in the west for months at Manila. The Mersing move makes Rangoon fall weeks or months early, which opens the Irrawaddy Valley to invasion that much earlier too, before PPs can accumulate enough to get any Indian help into Burma. And so forth.

Japan ignoring the eastern half of the map tilts history on its head. Non-historical start as an option is fine if the players agree, and especially if the Japan player is of lower skill than the Allied. It's a huge crutch for a lower-ability Japan player. In the hands of a Mr. Kane? You gave away the store.

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

This is a fascinating match to watch. I will be intrigued to see Mr. Kane's play with PDU Off as well. If you avoid AV (as you say, a big if), then he will have more difficulty stopping you than he did stopping GreyJoy - that's when PDU Off will tell, IMHO. It will be a great match either way.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm in a game with Lokasenna where I agreed to very favorable starting variables for Japan. I agreed; I deal. And, he did a PH strike, and did not do a Mersing. Nevertheless, I am on my heels in the autumn of 1942 and am, right now by my best estimates, playing for a draw. He is not a Japan player that needed pre-game set-up help. [:)]

The PDU Off variable we do not have in our game. It's an interesting wrinkle, and I have not come to any conclusion which side is helped, if either. It may be a question of eras, with favor shifting back and forth.

But for you, with Manila whacked (PLEASE start caring about subs! [:)]) and Singers down, by my standards, more than a month early, you ARE in danger of AV. If not on 1/1/43 then by the summer of 1943.

Let your USN subs go as sinkers in 1942. Make them scouts. They can fill in quite a bit for the awful lack of Allied search assets.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Let your USN subs go as sinkers in 1942. Make them scouts. They can fill in quite a bit for the awful lack of Allied search assets.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Let your USN subs go as sinkers in 1942. Make them scouts. They can fill in quite a bit for the awful lack of Allied search assets.

+1

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Those are the 2 AMC that raid Bora Bora/Tahiti sometimes.

I like to view the strategic map each turn to look for any unexpected red dots.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm in a game with Lokasenna where I agreed to very favorable starting variables for Japan. I agreed; I deal. And, he did a PH strike, and did not do a Mersing. Nevertheless, I am on my heels in the autumn of 1942 and am, right now by my best estimates, playing for a draw. He is not a Japan player that needed pre-game set-up help. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Erkki


How exactly can Japan score more VPs if the KB is in the DEI? If Japan hits Manila most of the valuable stuff from DEI and Singapore should be able to get away easily and the subs die on the 7th so you dont need to worry about them any more. Do you think Dutch PGs and xAKLs are as valuable as BBs? DEI also has the nasty Dutch subs - its the Pearl attack that presents no threat to KB. Maybe Japan can score some VPs if it manages to catch a good part of the shipping, but then again VPs gained from those ships hardly mean anything as they arent very useful. Losing a BB or a submarine's worth of VPs hurts the Allies much more than a mass of xAKLs and machine-gun-armed HDMLs worth the same points.

How is the game "VP-balanced"? And what if you dont give a hoot about them? They mean nothing. I mean, why in the earth should Allied player be rewarded with points for, say, building bases far behind the lines that will never be used with restricted units and endless supply? Or who real world commander would stop building ships or flying planes because "they are VPs for the enemy"? How can any individual bases operational or strategic value even measured by points? You can count VPs for holding bases and destroying units, but who counts the iniative, damaged units, how well the logistics are organized, gives extra VPs for bases within B-17 range of Palembang or measures player morale among the bazillion other things?

Japanese having more units or flexibility than historically or not, VPs or not, most Allied players still dont seem to have much trouble winning the war in historical schedule or ahead of it. As someone noted, you dont need to write letters to fallen pixeltruppens' homes.

With appropriate gentlemen's agreements in effect the game IMHO is a pretty good wargame and operational simulation of the real war. And very addictive. I suggest you too stop worrying about the VPs and autovictories and whatnot and maybe try playing as Japan a bit. This game simply takes too long to play through to be a game of points. The journey is more important than the (in this case inevitable) outcome.

Back on topic: I dont think unhistorical first turn is the worst option for the Allies even if they cant give orders outside of China for the 7th. Unrealistic R&D probably is.

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Hmm, speaking of suicide. Wonder when I should tell Maria I picked up a new PBEM? [:D]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Hmm, speaking of suicide. Wonder when I should tell Maria I picked up a new PBEM? [:D]

About 10 seconds before she finds out by any other means ?

Thats a bit of an oopsie..

Ground combat at Johore Bahru (50,83)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 1236 troops, 77 guns, 112 vehicles, Assault Value = 535

Defending force 5065 troops, 23 guns, 66 vehicles, Assault Value = 110

Japanese adjusted assault: 64

Allied adjusted defense: 35

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Allied ground losses:
153 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled

Night Time Surface Combat, near Balabac at 70,85, Range 9,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Shell hits 2
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 1
DD Shinonome, Shell hits 1
DD Shirakumo
DD Murakumo

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Shell hits 3
CL Boise