Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Timor continues to maintain its role as the bleeding ulcer of the Pacific. Japanese bombing of Koepang was prevented by bad weather on the 12th and the Allied engineers fixed up the base enough to justify flying in some fighters.

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 11
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 38
Ki-48 Lily x 34

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 9
P-39D Airacobra x 7
P-40E Warhawk x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 2 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 19 destroyed
Ki-48 Lily: 7 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 2 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed

Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 35

There was a 3 round naval battle between a force of PT boats and a Japanese force of Cruisers and DDs. 5 PTs went down and one DD was set on fire but the main effect was that the Japanese shore bombardment mission failed to damage the airfield at all.

A Japanese deliberate attack reduced the fortifications to level 2 but only got 0 to 1 odds. So the Garrison continues to hold out.





In Malaya Allied forces reach Kuantan, the Japanese got some reinforcements in so there may be a significant battle there. Japanese troops retreated to Johore Baru and British troops are following up fast.

Off the coast Allied forces launched major airstrikes at the Japanese shipping that has been trying to reach Malaya. Here are the hits that came in from various strikes, none of these TFs had any CAP or warships so losses were minimal on the Allied side:

Japanese Ships
AP Sunten Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese Ships
AP Sunten Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage (you think it would sink by now)
AP Surabaya Maru, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese Ships
AP Sakido Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese Ships
AP Kaedesan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Tatsuta Maru
AP Hie Maru, Torpedo hits 1
AP Keizan Maru
AP Syoryu Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yamakuni Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
Japanese Ships
AP Hie Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Yamakuni Maru, on fire
AP Yamakuni Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hakuyo Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Buyo Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Katori Maru, Torpedo hits 3, on fire
Japanese Ships
AP Yamakuni Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hakuyo Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Buyo Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Katori Maru, Torpedo hits 3, on fire (but no heavy damage?)

Hopefully this will intterupt Blackwatch's efforts to get a big Japanese army into Malaya in time to save the day.

I don't like to be overly critical, in fact I never have been on someone else's AAR, but all this basically boils down to gamey and dumb play by Blackwatch. He's simply stripping his rear areas of troops to support yet more expansion. What the hell is that?

This style of play is gamey for the reason none of this could have been done in real life. What the game needs is to have garrison requirements for all Japanese occupied bases. These people were popular nowhere and for good reason! They needed to keep fairly good garrisons everywhere in order to keep the locals in tow.

Blackwatch is dumb to do so in spite of game rules which allow this phony strategy because he's simply making it easier still for the inevitable Allied counterattack all across the various fronts to roll up in quick order these far-flung Japanese elements, that, or bypass them completely and leave the wretches to their unsupplied fate.

Frankly, I'm not too impressed with this AAR. I appreciate all the work you've put into it, Tom (your accounts are fun to read), but the play itself leaves much to be desired. Totally unrealistic, with the end result not hard to predict.

Some players around here really ought to pay attention to Mogami's houserules for the Japanese. These houserules make sense. Much of what I read in some of the AAR's does not make sense. End of sermon.

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Actually I am not really unhappy with my over all situation. I was hoping to hurt the Japanese more on Sept 8th, but the battle continued into the 9th with worlds of hurt on both sides. I will post more on that later today.

Just for comparison though Blackwatch has plenty of strength he could not launch an attack like the one you just posted without stripping the Pacific of air assets, and if he tried he would run into a much larger CAP then you posted. Hitting Dacca is completely out of the question too, since the Brits now have an army back in Malaya.

September 10th will be interesting to see as well, the battle may run 4 days depending on which direction Blackwatch chooses to move.

Hm... seems like you've reduced his strength quite well. In late 42 the IJAAF has about 600 level bombers. I've got about 200 in the pacific, the rest are in burma as he started an air offensive there a week ago or so. Flying in unescorted his heavies were massacred by tonies and tojos, and then i returned the favor.

The thing is that in the pacific the IJA bombers are quite useless, imho there are enough betties and zeroes to cover all of it anyway. DEI is another matter though. To be honest the allied heavy bomber force is only effective up to 5 hexes before the P-38's arrive in numbers. With P-40B's you can increase that to 7 but as you only get 10 per month you can't keep up the offensive for long. By september the japs should hve 4-5 sentais of both tojos and tonies, which shoot down heavy bombers quite well. The japanese bomber force however has a range of 8, sallies and helens escorted by zeroes, and even bigger punch at range 6 where tonies and lilies can be included. This means that in Burma, the allied airfields are in range of japanese escorts while the japanese aren't. The japs also have the advantage of very good recon planes.

Andy did catch me napping about a week or two ago when he launched a heavy bomber attack on mandalay after a month of quiet. He managed to destroy approx 40 fighters on the ground but lost 40-60 bombers in return. one third of the bombers launched. And i had only 50 fighters on cap.

You're mistaken. Early on Allied bombers are extremely effective wherever they can reach, escorted or no. This assumes they are employed correctly. Later on in the game, with longer-ranged escorts, these bomber assets become more powerful still.

If the Japanese wish to play this game with the Allies more the better. Should the Japanese bomb during daylight hours, the Allied simply set their CAP accordingly, then send in their bombers at night, where they'll catch the Japanese bombers on the ground. Should the Japanese switch over to night raids, the Allied bombers can continue their night attacks until the Japanese fighers are neutralized, then go over to day attacks. In all cases the Allies will be more effective than the Japanese over the long haul, and that's what this game is about. The long haul. This is because the Allies have better and heavier and more bombers than the Japanese, plus their pilot pool when called upon actually increases the experience level of their flying pilots in some cases. The Japanese, with only medium and light bombers to call upon, are guaranteed to experience less success in their bombing forays, so eventually and inevitably they will find themselves pushed away from their forward airfields, as these will no longer be tenable.

The best Japanese defense against Allied bombing is strong AA. But even that doesn't do much to bombers on night missions flying at 9,000 feet.

This truth applies everywhere except for China, where the poor Chinese have next to no good bombing assets, atrocious fighters, and suffer from poor supply on top of that. Here, the Japanese have the upper hand, but again, their bombers are so ineffective on balance that no clear result can be obtained.

From what I've seen thus far Japanese fighters might be too effective against Allied heavy bombers, with or without escorts. I also wonder if these heavy bombers are accounting for enough Japanese fighters in the air, but I'm sure about that yet. If your Japanese fighers are slaughtering B-17s and B-24s in September of 1942 then that's only an expression of an air system gone wrong. But even still, if the Allied air assets are used correctly your Japanese forward airfields are doomed. If that's not the case in your PBEM game(s) then you're not playing people who understand the system.

On the question of bombers we have a house rule that essentially prohibits night attacks. As far as the use of bomber is concerned both sides have used large bomber formations to shut down the other sides airfields with varying levels of success.

I believe there are several reasons why I have not seen "uber" bombers, or the bomber attacks that the Japanese can't stop.

Its 1942, I just don't have that many 4 engine bombers. Blackwatch on the other hand still has lots of twin engine bombers, at the moment we are competitive.

I am following a strategy that engages the Japanese in many different locations. Every day there are bomber attacks on at least 6 different bases around the map, if you add up all the bases on both sides that are under regular attack its between 12 and 15. This prevents me from concentrating the hundreds of bombers that are used to permanently shut down airfields.

We have a house rule against night bombing which makes it easier for Blackwatch to defend.

There may be other causes as well that I am not completely aware of.


Tristanjohn I think your criticisms of the games handling of heavy bombers are well founded, but they don't really apply to this particular game because of the way we play.

Tristanjohn:

I don't like to be overly critical, in fact I never have been on someone else's AAR, but all this basically boils down to gamey and dumb play by Blackwatch. He's simply stripping his rear areas of troops to support yet more expansion. What the hell is that?

This style of play is gamey for the reason none of this could have been done in real life. What the game needs is to have garrison requirements for all Japanese occupied bases. These people were popular nowhere and for good reason! They needed to keep fairly good garrisons everywhere in order to keep the locals in tow.

Blackwatch had something near 25,000 troops scattered around Malaya. Its true that he did not break them down into 100 man garrisons inorder to put troops everywhere, but I don't think that matters as that sized formation could not have stopped what I threw in anyway. In fact the first ground unit I hit had between 5,000 and 10,000 men when I started working on it.

Tristanjohn I don't even agree that Blackwatch's play has been stupid though I think he has made some mistakes. (I have made a large number of mistakes too, maybe even more than he has.)

A deep analysis of what has gone on in our game so far does not point to either one of us being stupid, or playing poorly. If Blackwatch was a bad player I would beat him consistently in all areas of the map. But I don't, he threw me out of Port Moresby and Guadalcanal in long hard fought campaigns. He is very close to beating me in Timor, I like to think I will win there but I cannot be sure. None of those battles are start of game give aways like Singapore or the Philipines.

Further if Blackwatch was a bad player then I am not terribly good either. So far my game with Blackwatch is the hardest either of us has played, collectively we have taken on 5 other people. Not a huge sample I will admit but not too small either.

I will put forth a diiferent thesis. I suggest that there is a strategy guiding all the major Allied efforts of this war succesful and unsuccessful. I will further suggest the same for the Japanese. Very recently the Allied strategy resulted in strategic suprise of the Japanese forces on the Malaya Pennisula. That suprise caught the Japanese with a relatively weak garrison and months of good planning and deception work payed off. I will further suggest that planning included preparing the forces that would (so far) successfully sever the maritime connection between Malaya and the rest of the Japanese empire.

I found this difficult and dangerous to do against a highly skilled opponent. Being one of the participants I think my explaination is better than the gamey play explaination that your providing Tristanjohn.

Eventaully I will do an analysis of the strategy and the moves that got me into Malaya but its still too early for me to do so without endangering a very risky move.

Sorry I can't say more, and I hope I don't sound too harsh, email can do that sometimes. But I think it would be good if people looked at the information posted in the AAR and thought about what was going on behind the scenes to make it all happen. I know that I have been (very) deliberately withholding information an observer needs to fully understand what I am doing but at this point a lot of my cards are showing and I think some conclusions can be drawn that don't disparage my opponent.

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

So relatively low quality Tojo pilots massacred the B24s? Did you have altitude on them? It just seems like a harsh result if there is not some factor, be it pilot quality, superior altitude or something else that made the high B24 loss rate happen.

I find it hard to believe that bad pilots coming from lower altitude could get those results but maybe you just got lucky.

The altitude was approx right, and remember that the tojo has the best climb rate of all japanese planes. Average pilot quality was 70 or so..

Well, the climb rate of the prototypical Nakajima Ki-44-Ia Shoki "Tojo" (with the Nakajima Ha-41 Army Type 100 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine rated at 1260 hp) was approximately the same as the A6M2 (16,405 feet in five minutes fifty-four seconds). The Ki-44 model IIb (this was the first real production model), with the more powerful Nakajima Ha-109 Army Type 2 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled raidal engine of 1520 hp did much better--during trials it rose to 16,405 feet in four minutes seventeen seconds. It wasn't until the latter model that the Japanese bothered to swap out the original 2x7.7mm synchronized machine guns in the nose for 12.7mms. The armament of this plane kept changing from one version to the next (there were many versions), but basically it wasn't until the IIc that it began to get serious. That Tojo was fitted with first 2x Ho-103 wing-mounted 40mm cannon, 10 rounds, then upgraded to a much more effective 2x Ho-301 37mm cannon scheme--the first cannon was slow firing, had short range, and was next to useless in practice. Why Matrix didn't model the IIc as well as the IIb is something I don't understand. I can't find exact production numbers for any of the Tojo variants, so maybe the thinking was they'd just go with the first mass-produced model, which would be the IIb.

The final iterations of this plane, the IIIa and IIIb, were propelled by the Nakajima Ha-145 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial that put out 2,000 hp and were armed with: IIIa ( 4x20mm Ho-5 cannon), IIIb (2x20mm Ho-5, 2x37mm Ho-203 cannon). By this time the builders had completely lost the thread and these final variants, with more weight and larger wing surfaces, suffered decreased performance, and were not built in round numbers.

Anyway, the Tojo was an okay interceptor by Japanese standards but nothing to write home about. It wasn't anymore durable than the rest of their typical junk and could be shot down directly by .50 calibers, which, of course, American bombers bristled with. On the other hand, it had pretty good speed, an excellent climb rate (until the III-types) and good armament (once it was equipped with decent-firing cannon). Mostly it was reserved for defense in Burma and China, plus it flew over the oil fields at Palembang and intercepted B-29s over the home islands, where it proved effective at least for catching up to those monsters, and shot down a few, too.

As it models the IIb the game seems to have it wrong in several respects. First, I doubt the IIb could "manuever" at a game rate of 32, but who's really to say, especiallyu since "maneuver" to Gary is something mystical. Second, as far as I know it had no armor, though the game awards it an armor value of 1. Third, the game allows for a top speed of 376 mph whereas the Tojo IIb had a top speed, as far as I know, of only 360 mph at 12,140 feet. (The first prototypes got up to 389 mph, but that was without the weight of armament.) Finally, the game also assigns the Tojo a durability rating of 26, and I'm not so sure that's right, either (probably too high).

I don't have any examples from history that I can turn to of Tojos meeting B-17s and B-24s unescorted, but I dare say if they do so in the game they ought to drop more of their number then the Allies do of their own.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Tristanjohn:

I don't like to be overly critical, in fact I never have been on someone else's AAR, but all this basically boils down to gamey and dumb play by Blackwatch. He's simply stripping his rear areas of troops to support yet more expansion. What the hell is that?

This style of play is gamey for the reason none of this could have been done in real life. What the game needs is to have garrison requirements for all Japanese occupied bases. These people were popular nowhere and for good reason! They needed to keep fairly good garrisons everywhere in order to keep the locals in tow.

Blackwatch had something near 25,000 troops scattered around Malaya. Its true that he did not break them down into 100 man garrisons inorder to put troops everywhere, but I don't think that matters as that sized formation could not have stopped what I threw in anyway. In fact the first ground unit I hit had between 5,000 and 10,000 men when I started working on it.

Tristanjohn I don't even agree that Blackwatch's play has been stupid though I think he has made some mistakes. (I have made a large number of mistakes too, maybe even more than he has.)

A deep analysis of what has gone on in our game so far does not point to either one of us being stupid, or playing poorly. If Blackwatch was a bad player I would beat him consistently in all areas of the map. But I don't, he threw me out of Port Moresby and Guadalcanal in long hard fought campaigns. He is very close to beating me in Timor, I like to think I will win there but I cannot be sure. None of those battles are start of game give aways like Singapore or the Philipines.

Further if Blackwatch was a bad player then I am not terribly good either. So far my game with Blackwatch is the hardest either of us has played, collectively we have taken on 5 other people. Not a huge sample I will admit but not too small either.

I will put forth a diiferent thesis. I suggest that there is a strategy guiding all the major Allied efforts of this war succesful and unsuccessful. I will further suggest the same for the Japanese. Very recently the Allied strategy resulted in strategic suprise of the Japanese forces on the Malaya Pennisula. That suprise caught the Japanese with a relatively weak garrison and months of good planning and deception work payed off. I will further suggest that planning included preparing the forces that would (so far) successfully sever the maritime connection between Malaya and the rest of the Japanese empire.

I found this difficult and dangerous to do against a highly skilled opponent. Being one of the participants I think my explaination is better than the gamey play explaination that your providing Tristanjohn.

Eventaully I will do an analysis of the strategy and the moves that got me into Malaya but its still too early for me to do so without endangering a very risky move.

Sorry I can't say more, and I hope I don't sound too harsh, email can do that sometimes. But I think it would be good if people looked at the information posted in the AAR and thought about what was going on behind the scenes to make it all happen. I know that I have been (very) deliberately withholding information an observer needs to fully understand what I am doing but at this point a lot of my cards are showing and I think some conclusions can be drawn that don't disparage my opponent.

I don't want to disparage anyone necessarily, but there's a lot of this kind of play on these boards and it's gamey as can be. Perhaps some of this might be put down to Japanese players hoping to "win" the game by an accumulation of enough points by 1943, but I find that more than a little gamey in itself, too. Maybe that's just me. I play according to the map, and how I view what was and what was not actually possible in real life. Points mean nothing to me.

But as I seem to be a disruptive influence here, I'll bow out and leave you to fight the war however you see fit. [;)]

Actually I like criticism and arguement it makes this more interesting.

Just jogging my memory but didn't the Japanese take Malaya the first time with 50,000 men?

If he left 25,000 (or half of the force that took it) as a garrison is that really gamey?

Also I don't think there is any evidence that Blackwatch stripped Malaya to launch too ambitious offensives. Port Moresby and Guadalcanal were certainly on the Japanese list historically and right now his only offensive effort in the game is directed at Timor. I don't see how any of this is gamey.

You might argue that my counter attack is gamey but even here I am not sure I would agree. The British did not do this historically because they could not get CAP over thier invasion force. I did get CAP over my invasion force, I would not have invaded without CAP either, and 60 Fulmars does not count as CAP, my CAP was flying from Sumatra which Blackwatch was kind enough to leave for me.

No Big Changes this turn. There were air battles over Singapore, Blackwatch brought in fighters last turn and he bagged a number of allied bombers. No other battles of any sort in Malaya.

New Guinea was quiet as well with no attacks on either side.

Timor saw Allied bombers hit the Japanese troops who are trying to take Koepang.

In China the victorious Chinese army took Anking on the Yangtze.

An unusually quiet day, tomorrow the first British units arrive at Singapore. Blackwatch did get reinforcements into the City so it should be a serious fight.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Tristanjohn:

I don't like to be overly critical, in fact I never have been on someone else's AAR, but all this basically boils down to gamey and dumb play by Blackwatch. He's simply stripping his rear areas of troops to support yet more expansion. What the hell is that?

This style of play is gamey for the reason none of this could have been done in real life. What the game needs is to have garrison requirements for all Japanese occupied bases. These people were popular nowhere and for good reason! They needed to keep fairly good garrisons everywhere in order to keep the locals in tow.

Blackwatch had something near 25,000 troops scattered around Malaya. Its true that he did not break them down into 100 man garrisons inorder to put troops everywhere, but I don't think that matters as that sized formation could not have stopped what I threw in anyway. In fact the first ground unit I hit had between 5,000 and 10,000 men when I started working on it.

Tristanjohn I don't even agree that Blackwatch's play has been stupid though I think he has made some mistakes. (I have made a large number of mistakes too, maybe even more than he has.)

A deep analysis of what has gone on in our game so far does not point to either one of us being stupid, or playing poorly. If Blackwatch was a bad player I would beat him consistently in all areas of the map. But I don't, he threw me out of Port Moresby and Guadalcanal in long hard fought campaigns. He is very close to beating me in Timor, I like to think I will win there but I cannot be sure. None of those battles are start of game give aways like Singapore or the Philipines.

Further if Blackwatch was a bad player then I am not terribly good either. So far my game with Blackwatch is the hardest either of us has played, collectively we have taken on 5 other people. Not a huge sample I will admit but not too small either.

I will put forth a diiferent thesis. I suggest that there is a strategy guiding all the major Allied efforts of this war succesful and unsuccessful. I will further suggest the same for the Japanese. Very recently the Allied strategy resulted in strategic suprise of the Japanese forces on the Malaya Pennisula. That suprise caught the Japanese with a relatively weak garrison and months of good planning and deception work payed off. I will further suggest that planning included preparing the forces that would (so far) successfully sever the maritime connection between Malaya and the rest of the Japanese empire.

I found this difficult and dangerous to do against a highly skilled opponent. Being one of the participants I think my explaination is better than the gamey play explaination that your providing Tristanjohn.

Eventaully I will do an analysis of the strategy and the moves that got me into Malaya but its still too early for me to do so without endangering a very risky move.

Sorry I can't say more, and I hope I don't sound too harsh, email can do that sometimes. But I think it would be good if people looked at the information posted in the AAR and thought about what was going on behind the scenes to make it all happen. I know that I have been (very) deliberately withholding information an observer needs to fully understand what I am doing but at this point a lot of my cards are showing and I think some conclusions can be drawn that don't disparage my opponent.

I don't want to disparage anyone necessarily, but there's a lot of this kind of play on these boards and it's gamey as can be. Perhaps some of this might be put down to Japanese players hoping to "win" the game by an accumulation of enough points by 1943, but I find that more than a little gamey in itself, too. Maybe that's just me. I play according to the map, and how I view what was and what was not actually possible in real life. Points mean nothing to me.

But as I seem to be a disruptive influence here, I'll bow out and leave you to fight the war however you see fit. [;)]

don't mean to break your bubble mate, but aren't you the one using 50-100 LB on night mission from PM in early '42 in another AAR?

This is problably one of the worst gamey actions an Allied player can do, given the total unrealistic Night Bombing accuracy in the game.

or the one using 1 ship TF to exploit the targetting routines of naval attack ?

Everyone is free to play as he wants as long as he agreed with his opponent. However you are the last to accuse another of beeing gamey [;)]

Yes, Japan should garrison Malaya.
UK should garrison India.
US troops on West Coast souldn't be allowed to change HQ.
Allies shouldn't evacuate fragemtn of units from PI to rebuild them.
LB should have their accuracy lowered a lot.
Night Bombing should be lowered a lot.

And the list goes on. Many things in the game are gamey. Personally i find very gamey to exploit night bombinb as Allies. When i play Allies, i only night bomb ManPower. It's very easy, gamaey and no-brainer to just easy kill Japs in '42 with massive night bombinb [;)]

Not garrisoning Malaya is maybe gamey as Japs had to garrison bases. However, does the OOB also covers the garrisons that both sides had? However, since UK had no garrison requirement as well, it is at least even. and Blackwatch is paying his price for not garrisoning Malaya.
Night bombing has no price. it's just exploit.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Actually I am not really unhappy with my over all situation. I was hoping to hurt the Japanese more on Sept 8th, but the battle continued into the 9th with worlds of hurt on both sides. I will post more on that later today.

Just for comparison though Blackwatch has plenty of strength he could not launch an attack like the one you just posted without stripping the Pacific of air assets, and if he tried he would run into a much larger CAP then you posted. Hitting Dacca is completely out of the question too, since the Brits now have an army back in Malaya.

September 10th will be interesting to see as well, the battle may run 4 days depending on which direction Blackwatch chooses to move.

Hm... seems like you've reduced his strength quite well. In late 42 the IJAAF has about 600 level bombers. I've got about 200 in the pacific, the rest are in burma as he started an air offensive there a week ago or so. Flying in unescorted his heavies were massacred by tonies and tojos, and then i returned the favor.

The thing is that in the pacific the IJA bombers are quite useless, imho there are enough betties and zeroes to cover all of it anyway. DEI is another matter though. To be honest the allied heavy bomber force is only effective up to 5 hexes before the P-38's arrive in numbers. With P-40B's you can increase that to 7 but as you only get 10 per month you can't keep up the offensive for long. By september the japs should hve 4-5 sentais of both tojos and tonies, which shoot down heavy bombers quite well. The japanese bomber force however has a range of 8, sallies and helens escorted by zeroes, and even bigger punch at range 6 where tonies and lilies can be included. This means that in Burma, the allied airfields are in range of japanese escorts while the japanese aren't. The japs also have the advantage of very good recon planes.

Andy did catch me napping about a week or two ago when he launched a heavy bomber attack on mandalay after a month of quiet. He managed to destroy approx 40 fighters on the ground but lost 40-60 bombers in return. one third of the bombers launched. And i had only 50 fighters on cap.

You're mistaken. Early on Allied bombers are extremely effective wherever they can reach, escorted or no. This assumes they are employed correctly. Later on in the game, with longer-ranged escorts, these bomber assets become more powerful still.

If the Japanese wish to play this game with the Allies more the better. Should the Japanese bomb during daylight hours, the Allied simply set their CAP accordingly, then send in their bombers at night, where they'll catch the Japanese bombers on the ground. Should the Japanese switch over to night raids, the Allied bombers can continue their night attacks until the Japanese fighers are neutralized, then go over to day attacks. In all cases the Allies will be more effective than the Japanese over the long haul, and that's what this game is about. The long haul. This is because the Allies have better and heavier and more bombers than the Japanese, plus their pilot pool when called upon actually increases the experience level of their flying pilots in some cases. The Japanese, with only medium and light bombers to call upon, are guaranteed to experience less success in their bombing forays, so eventually and inevitably they will find themselves pushed away from their forward airfields, as these will no longer be tenable.

The best Japanese defense against Allied bombing is strong AA. But even that doesn't do much to bombers on night missions flying at 9,000 feet.

This truth applies everywhere except for China, where the poor Chinese have next to no good bombing assets, atrocious fighters, and suffer from poor supply on top of that. Here, the Japanese have the upper hand, but again, their bombers are so ineffective on balance that no clear result can be obtained.

From what I've seen thus far Japanese fighters might be too effective against Allied heavy bombers, with or without escorts. I also wonder if these heavy bombers are accounting for enough Japanese fighters in the air, but I'm sure about that yet. If your Japanese fighers are slaughtering B-17s and B-24s in September of 1942 then that's only an expression of an air system gone wrong. But even still, if the Allied air assets are used correctly your Japanese forward airfields are doomed. If that's not the case in your PBEM game(s) then you're not playing people who understand the system.

We have a house rule which prevents night bombing airfields and ports.

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Tristanjohn:



Blackwatch had something near 25,000 troops scattered around Malaya. Its true that he did not break them down into 100 man garrisons inorder to put troops everywhere, but I don't think that matters as that sized formation could not have stopped what I threw in anyway. In fact the first ground unit I hit had between 5,000 and 10,000 men when I started working on it.

Tristanjohn I don't even agree that Blackwatch's play has been stupid though I think he has made some mistakes. (I have made a large number of mistakes too, maybe even more than he has.)

A deep analysis of what has gone on in our game so far does not point to either one of us being stupid, or playing poorly. If Blackwatch was a bad player I would beat him consistently in all areas of the map. But I don't, he threw me out of Port Moresby and Guadalcanal in long hard fought campaigns. He is very close to beating me in Timor, I like to think I will win there but I cannot be sure. None of those battles are start of game give aways like Singapore or the Philipines.

Further if Blackwatch was a bad player then I am not terribly good either. So far my game with Blackwatch is the hardest either of us has played, collectively we have taken on 5 other people. Not a huge sample I will admit but not too small either.

I will put forth a diiferent thesis. I suggest that there is a strategy guiding all the major Allied efforts of this war succesful and unsuccessful. I will further suggest the same for the Japanese. Very recently the Allied strategy resulted in strategic suprise of the Japanese forces on the Malaya Pennisula. That suprise caught the Japanese with a relatively weak garrison and months of good planning and deception work payed off. I will further suggest that planning included preparing the forces that would (so far) successfully sever the maritime connection between Malaya and the rest of the Japanese empire.

I found this difficult and dangerous to do against a highly skilled opponent. Being one of the participants I think my explaination is better than the gamey play explaination that your providing Tristanjohn.

Eventaully I will do an analysis of the strategy and the moves that got me into Malaya but its still too early for me to do so without endangering a very risky move.

Sorry I can't say more, and I hope I don't sound too harsh, email can do that sometimes. But I think it would be good if people looked at the information posted in the AAR and thought about what was going on behind the scenes to make it all happen. I know that I have been (very) deliberately withholding information an observer needs to fully understand what I am doing but at this point a lot of my cards are showing and I think some conclusions can be drawn that don't disparage my opponent.

I don't want to disparage anyone necessarily, but there's a lot of this kind of play on these boards and it's gamey as can be. Perhaps some of this might be put down to Japanese players hoping to "win" the game by an accumulation of enough points by 1943, but I find that more than a little gamey in itself, too. Maybe that's just me. I play according to the map, and how I view what was and what was not actually possible in real life. Points mean nothing to me.

But as I seem to be a disruptive influence here, I'll bow out and leave you to fight the war however you see fit. [;)]

don't mean to break your bubble mate, but aren't you the one using 50-100 LB on night mission from PM in early '42 in another AAR?

This is problably one of the worst gamey actions an Allied player can do, given the total unrealistic Night Bombing accuracy in the game.

or the one using 1 ship TF to exploit the targetting routines of naval attack ?

Everyone is free to play as he wants as long as he agreed with his opponent. However you are the last to accuse another of beeing gamey [;)]

Yes, Japan should garrison Malaya.
UK should garrison India.
US troops on West Coast souldn't be allowed to change HQ.
Allies shouldn't evacuate fragemtn of units from PI to rebuild them.
LB should have their accuracy lowered a lot.
Night Bombing should be lowered a lot.

And the list goes on. Many things in the game are gamey. Personally i find very gamey to exploit night bombinb as Allies. When i play Allies, i only night bomb ManPower. It's very easy, gamaey and no-brainer to just easy kill Japs in '42 with massive night bombinb [;)]

Not garrisoning Malaya is maybe gamey as Japs had to garrison bases. However, does the OOB also covers the garrisons that both sides had? However, since UK had no garrison requirement as well, it is at least even. and Blackwatch is paying his price for not garrisoning Malaya.
Night bombing has no price. it's just exploit.

Well, I was going to stay out of this thread and just read it for enjoyment, but if you insist:

1) No, night bombing is not gamey. It is necessary, and if you do away with it the air-system mechanics become even more screwed than they already are because of the stupid models that were installed by Gary.

2) Breaking down TFs into smaller divisions is something any intelligent player would do because of the dumb naval and air mechanics that Gary installed.

3) The OOB doesn't cover every little unit that was in the war, but the reason for garrisons is to simulate the need to keep the populace in line while maintaining lines of communication from the rear areas to the front. If the game had anything like a decent land-combat model wedded to a workable logistics model it wouldn't be necessary to point something this obvious out because the players who did not garrison their rear areas would be out of supply and thus out of the game already.

4) While the Allies don't have garrison requirements per se, and would never be required to have the same requirements as the Japanese anyway (after all, the Allies were popular, the Japanese were detested--do you comprehend that distinction, can you make sense of it?), it's still the case that some kind of Allied garrison requirement should be required if only to model the necessities they faced in terms of logistics and the cultural imperative to help the many unfortunates they encountered all the time along the way. (I define "unfortunates" mostly as the various peoples already brutalized by the Japanese.)

5) I agree that everyone should be allowed to play this game as they see fit. No problem there. I am, however, eager to see the game improved (if possible, which I often doubt), and when I see the game system "stretched" this way and that by gamers who apparently just want to "win" the game and not see how the greater model behaves I'm moved to point out that A) what they're doing is gamey, for the reason that B) I'm afraid if too many people play like that then the feedback to Matrix will be, on balance, something less than useful in terms of improving the simulation--scratch that, make it merely a "game" as of this moment. This is, in fact, how and why utterly ridiculous brainstorms such as the Allied Sub Doctrine rule/toggle are foisted on the other, more serious gamer element which also wants to enjoy this simulation/game. Got it?

6) I am not at all convinced that night bombing is too effective, though it might be at that. My results have been all over the board with it, some good, some bad. I will say, however, that anything which serves to slow the air model down cannot be a totally negative influence on play. And strategic bombing of bases is a good way to slow that air model down, assuming that strategic bombing has reasonable effect. That was, after all, why the Allies did this during the war. I'm aware that the night-bombing routines have been toned down again for v1.5, and I'm not convinced this is a good idea. It sounds to me like just one more knee-jerk reaction by Matrix based on ill-thought-out complaints issued long and loud in the public forum from people . . . well, from people a little bit like you. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


*snip*

So basically what you are saying is that it is OK "stretch" the system as long as it's done your way, as the game rules are "stupid" and don't act the way you would like them to.

Allied were popular ? Well, they were not so harsh and hated as Japanese but Burmese were not really friendly to British and Indians, attacking them repeatly during their retreat. Some DEI islands small garnisons were killed by local inhabitants, or at least the Dutch officers and men were killed, sometimes by their native men. India never revolted but the protests of 1942 certainly slowed the economy of the country and cost the lives to more than 1000 persons. And in New Guinea, tribes helped both sides.

My own home rule is to let a garrison (or a part of it) to any place I use, either for ressources, HI or port. And in China to have one unit (or a part of it) on each road/rail hex I "use" between two Japanese bases.

The game would be far better if the ress/oil/HI will not work if no friendly unit is in the hex. That will keep some troops on rear bases (for both sides, but mainly Japan) and also allow the Allied player to stop producing ressources and oil for Japan, that has just to wait to seize the bases and all the goods inside.

As for night bombings, I think they are working OK if you compare the results achieved with the number of planes over the target. What is ridiculous is that players are able to send 100+ bombers from one size 4 base to one target in 1942 in the Pacific. And that WITP model treats them as day raids for AA purposes, that is as huge formation raids coming at once, while in RL night bombing in the Pacific was most of the times one plane at the time and during hours.

But an AAR is not the good place to talk about that.

To come back to this AAR, I don't think that invading Malaya in 1942 is "gamey". It's just too easy to organize, as Japanese amphibie operations are too easy at the same time or just earlier. And the land advances are too fast (troops invading a place don't use train, they walk). But both sides have the same advantages in this game regarding this.
The reason for the current state of this game is probably that Blackwatch, as many of us (ex-UV players) are too Solomons-centric. We're so used to fight there that it is usual to read AAR where one side or another commits very early and the other comes to fight there. These islands have no strategic value. And are places where both sides will have a difficult time (small bases, malaria everywhere and so on). On the other hand Sumatra and Timor are direct threats on Japanese ressource/oil centers but are close to big Japanese bases and easier to invade and hold than Solomons IMOO. So my own strategy is to take them before commiting in SW Pacific.

Tristanjohn, what is gamey for you isn't necessary gamey for other players. English weren't popular as well in India. do you really think that if english sent everything they had in India on Burma, India would have continued to be UK colony/ally?

My post wasn't meant to start a discussion about night bombing (which IS bugged, as it is scheduled to be toned down in 1.5 and so officially seen as not working as designed).

I just say that BEFORE accusing another player to be "gamey" AT LEAST everyone should think how he plays first.
Since you are not an example of a "fair" player as you use your own bag of gamey tactics to bypass game mechanics (1 ship TF) or exploit a known weakness of the game (night bombing) launching 100 bombers from PM at night every day and also beeing proud of it, i wouldn't expect you to jump in an AAR thread saying one of the players is dumb/gamey (which is also unfair and unpolite).

PS: Night bombing isn't screwed if you send a single squadron from time to time bombing a base as happened in RL. it is if you send 100 bombers from PM. Cause their accuracy are way higher, operational losses minimal, AA reaction a joke.
So yes, using 100 bombers in PM isn't smart nor fair. its just a no-brainer gamey tactic.

Since its my AAR I am banishing the night bombing discussion to some other part of the forum [:-]

I do encourage discussion of the game covered in the AAR because it makes things more interesting, and its why I write the AAR in the first place, thanks for dropping by.

Admiral Laurent is on to something, at least I think he is. Blackwatch did take the Solomons and did not take out the small islolated bases in North Sumatra. Blackwatch is a veteran UV player, I am not. I looked for places I could hurt him and found Malaya.

I think Tristanjohn's 6 item list brings up some very important points and I agree with 1,2,3,4, and 6. Those are all about game design issues. Point number 5 is about this particular game and I think his interpretation of events is incorrect.


[quote]5) I agree that everyone should be allowed to play this game as they see fit. No problem there. I am, however, eager to see the game improved (if possible, which I often doubt), and when I see the game system "stretched" this way and that by gamers who apparently just want to "win" the game and not see how the greater model behaves I'm moved to point out that A) what they're doing is gamey, >snipped the rest<

I don't think the game is being streched in this case. I made strenous efforts to keep Blackwatch's attention away from Malaya and focused elsewhere. Blackwatch left a fair sized garrison in the country, I knew that it was located in Malacca, Kuantan and Singapore so I came ashore in Georgetown and Kuala Lumpur. Blackwatch could have left 5,000 to 15,000 man garrisons in Kuala Lumpur, Georgetown, Malacca, and Songakia, but when you add in his 10,000 to 15,000 troops in Singapore and Kuantan you end up with a Malaya garrison 40,000 to 60,000 troops for Malaya which is pretty much what the Japanese used to invade the place in the first place.

I think Blackwatch had a resonable garrison for Malaya in 1942. I don't think he stripped the Japanese empire of defenders to free up troops for conquest, but he may have re-inforced areas that I appeared to threaten at the expense of Malaya.

In the months before I invaded I raided Siapan, knocked out the airbase at Baker and kept it suppressed for 2 months, raided Tarawa, and finally made a major feint at Gili Gili and then came back and fought the first large carrier action of the war there. This was all designed to focus Blackwatch's attention on the strongest force I have in the game, the Americans.

I have also been fighting a hard battle for Timor. Blackwatch may be winning that battle, its hard for me to tell for sure, but its still pretty close. Timor has attracted lots of his attention and forces and rightly so. Until a few days ago Timor was the most important battle in the war, the idea that Blackwatch should strip Timor to garrison Malaya was laughable until a one or two game weeks ago.

In addition to all that my third strongest force, the Chinese are on the offensive as well. This does not pull Japanese forces away from the Pacific but it does force Blackwatch to focus some attention on China and the recent heavy casualties there reduce the chances of the Japanese sending troops out of China to garrison the rest of the empire.

During that time I moved (sorry can't say how much) troops into Sumatra, built up the airbases there and did other preperation but I was very careful not to do any offensive action in the area. I did not even fly patrol planes. I made a very big effort to achive strategic suprise and create circumstances that give me a chance of taking back Malaya.

I don't see how what Blackwatch did was gamey. I don't think what I did was gamey either, unless you think launching offensives with the British in 1942 is gamey. I think I spotted an opportunity, carefully prepared for it over the course of 4 months and then launched an offensive. So far my careful efforts have brought me some success.

I would not be suprised if some people start complaining about British power based on this AAR, people will complain about anything. But that is a red herring, the attack on Malaya is not about British power, its about good command, preparation and achiving strategic suprise. In that regard its much like PzBs offensive going the other direction, he achieved strategic suprise over Wobbly who was clearly not expecting an all out invasion of India.

Its too early to tell what I will get from this effort, I may get a very bloody defeat, but I don't think its gamey, and its certainly not gamey for the Japanese to garrison a "safe" territory with 25,000 men. How many men do you think he should have had in Malaya?

I will even accept your argument that when some one comes up with a really clever but historically impossible move it creates pressure on matrix that can cause bad tweaks to the game. I just don't think there is any evidence that this has happened in this particular AAR.

Somehow these comments ended up in a quote box but they are original in this post.

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


*snip*

So basically what you are saying is that it is OK "stretch" the system as long as it's done your way, as the game rules are "stupid" and don't act the way you would like them to.

You miss the point, too. I'm endeavoring not to stretch the system for the reason the rules are stupid and very definitely do not act the way even Gary seems to have intended, much less the way I'd like.

Invasion of Malaya in '42 surely is a surprise. I have no idea how many troops Blackwatch got there, but surely he can't have more than 2-3 divs at best.

What is maybe a mistake of Blackwatch is that invasion happened in September. By that date Japan should have had all the DEI bases and so preventing Allies to have recon or close bases.
Problably the defeats he got in China prevented him from moving some of those forces in Malaya for defence.

Also, without knowing where the bulk of SRA 11 Divs are it's hard to have a clear view. Cause if he can bring in malaya 11 Divs you end up in a disaster.

Btw, i played against Blackwath in my first PBEM. i had few experience in UV and totally unexperienced in PBEM in WiTP. and i was playing Japan. He kicked my ass pretty bad. He made some mistakes as well that i could have exploited now, but at that date, i was making far more mistakes.
This to say he is a careful player and experienced. SUrely he was as playing Allies.

I was thinking to go on with my Coral Sea battle report and don't enter in this topic. I dont think that someone who never played me should start his arguments on this forum with the determination that my play is "gamey and dumb" is worth of an answer.
Maybe of course that I'm wrong and that he deeply analyzed all the AAR from the start and that he has solid argument to substain his position.
Now some clarifications:

I don't remember so far any of my opponents complaining for my gamey behavior in this game (well I don't remember any opponent in about 35 years of wargaming complaining about that). Maybe that all of my opponents wil start complaining now, let's see.....

I don't remember any of my opponent complaining about my level of play too. Kaiser73 is right about my mistakes in my game against him: it was my first WITP PEBM. I keep making mistakes in my games: I think that it would be gamey to make no mistakes at all in a game, in the real war everyone makes mistakes, a perfect play would not recreate history.
This is a very complex game and I'm still learning something new each turn and I believe that I'll keep learning for a while.

My target is never to exploit games rules for a victory. Of course I like to win, but on my opinion to play such a complex game as WITP just for a victory is stupid. I always preferred complex game because they allow a better feeling of the real situation and problems.
I never asked to restart a WITP game because one of my units vanished. I'm not asking now to restart this game now, even if, as Tom knows (and he knew it before of his invasion of Malaya), there is something going wrong with my production.

All,

This just in from Blackwatch, he had informed me of the problem a few game weeks ago but had decided to keep on playing.

> A6M2 received this turn 5
> A6M2 monthly rate 392 ie 13 each day
> This is starting to be a big problem after 2 months

Since keeping a high attrition rate is a part of my strategy this is causing us to consider suspending or dropping the game. We are still hoping for a fix but the impact is getting very severe.

Well, Mr Frag thinks this is sunk ship replacement bug. I am guessing that since I sunk a number of small ships there are a whole bunch of little air groups that are sucking up the Zeros.

I have already offered to take several hundred fighters out of action. I won't say where these are but this is what is being removed from active action:

140 P36s in two groups, 72 P40E, 16 Hurricane IIs, 16 Spitfire MkV, and I am going to upgrade a group of 4F3s that I had been keeping in action to get the replacement pool which is now over 100 aircraft. You may be asking why take the P36s out of action when they are not very good? The answer is that they are arriving in locations where they will really mess with Blackwatch's ability to control the air so pulling them out gives him a much better position.