Page 2 of 5
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:15 am
by 2ndACR
I posted in both Panzer and Castor's AAR about the Helens. I say, max 27 or 36 per level 4 air base on ASW. No need to end a game over this. I know they are very effective on ASW, because I use them too.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner - Tarawa Falls
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:45 am
by Cuttlefish
Maybe this is a good place to mention a small issue that has started to bother me lately. I’ve seen a lot of posts in AARs that deal with waterfalls. You know – Tarawa Falls, Wake Island Falls, and so on. The thing is, a lot of these places are atolls. Waterfalls are either nonexistent or so small as to be insignificant. The effects on movement and combat, especially given the scale of the game, are negligible.
Now, I admit that some bases have waterfalls. Ponape Falls:
Palau Falls:
Okinawa Falls:
And there are others. By and large, though, these features are more important to tourism than to warfare. I’m hopeful that people will stop talking about these stupid water features in their AARs and get back to talking about tactics and strategy.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:51 am
by BrucePowers
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Exactly!
If you put the Japanese bombers on front-line duty, they just die. No matter what mod, they just die. Repeatedly and in agony. Its the same with the Bettys, unless you mass them in 100+ numbers they just impale themselves on the CV CAP wherever the allies decide to show up in range. What else is there to do with your bombers than to have them defend the convoy-lines?
One of things I like to do as the Japanese player is to see what would happen if things were done differently. By placing large amounts of aircraft on ASW or naval search, we can see if the sub threat can be mitigated. This then allows those all important raw materials to reach Japan
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner - Tarawa Falls
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
by okami
ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
Maybe this is a good place to mention a small issue that has started to bother me lately. I’ve seen a lot of posts in AARs that deal with waterfalls. You know – Tarawa Falls, Wake Island Falls, and so on. The thing is, a lot of these places are atolls. Waterfalls are either nonexistent or so small as to be insignificant. The effects on movement and combat, especially given the scale of the game, are negligible.
Now, I admit that some bases have waterfalls. Ponape Falls:
Palau Falls:
Okinawa Falls:
And there are others. By and large, though, these features are more important to tourism than to warfare. I’m hopeful that people will stop talking about these stupid water features in their AARs and get back to talking about tactics and strategy.
I feel like a fish going upstream but I have to bite on this one... Cuttlefish what happens when the HMCS Niagra is sunk? I think that under the present circumstances this would be a war altering message.[:D][:D][:D]
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner - Tarawa Falls
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:32 am
by Cuttlefish
ORIGINAL: okami
[I feel like a fish going upstream but I have to bite on this one... Cuttlefish what happens when the HMCS Niagra is sunk? I think that under the present circumstances this would be a war altering message.[:D][:D][:D]
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. That could initiate a cascade failure of the entire Allied war effort!
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner - Tarawa Falls
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:36 am
by okami
ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
ORIGINAL: okami
[I feel like a fish going upstream but I have to bite on this one... Cuttlefish what happens when the HMCS Niagra is sunk? I think that under the present circumstances this would be a war altering message.[:D][:D][:D]
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. That could initiate a cascade failure of the entire Allied war effort!
And when Victoria Point is taken, what if the message reads "Victoria Falls" instead of "Victoria Point Falls". Food for thought.[:D][:D][:D] Wouldn't want the allies looking for Japs in Tanzania.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:29 pm
by vettim89
Just had to post this here as I don't have an AAR for my GC game against my brother. He tried to sneak a SNLF over the trail to PM. I bombed it into oblivion for two days then attacked it with the single Aussie Inf Battalion. He had NO effective squads! Allied assault ratio 150:1. SNLF runs back down the trail to Buna. Which BTW as far as game mechanics goes bites because they ge the miraculous 60 nm teleportation effect to ge them out of the hex instaed of being harrassed and bombarded back to the stone age as they tried to walk back. BOOOOO on the game engine for that one. As it is my one and only victory in this miserable campaign so far I felt the need to gloat.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:47 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
But the Helen is 10 times more effective at ASW than any other Japanese bomber... There was great discomfort about this some months ago (or was it last year) when someone did a test and found out that the Helen attacked and hit submarines much more frequently than any other Jap bomber...
Hehe, like today when my Helens hit two of his subs. But on the other hand Castor, you really shouldnt operate your subs so close to my bases.
[/quote]
Hehe, can you tell us little more about your ASW debates...is there any changes, did you changed your mind?
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:40 am
by Hortlund
ORIGINAL: pauk
Hehe, can you tell us little more about your ASW debates...is there any changes, did you changed your mind?
No, no changes. The only reason I agreed to the houserule regarding the Helens was because Castor felt strongly about it and I offered a compromise. I still think the sane thing to do is not send subs to patrol 1-2-3 hexes off major enemy airbases.
So, my original point remains, there is nothing wrong, strange or gamey with having your LBAs on ASW-patrol. That is how the Brits won the battle of the Atlantic after all. But since Castor thinks it is unfair that I can hit his subs, I offered a stacking-limit. Most players have stacking limits for their airunits, so I figured why not. Incidentally, I dont believe this will change one thing since under the HR I suggested I could have done exactly the same thing that I did in the past weeks in those ASW-battles off Japan. Check out my AAR thread and you will note that I never massed more than 2 Helen-wings on any airbase during those battles.
To use the KB like a huge ASW-machine is completely braindead however. Its a game-engine exploit much like the para-drop-to-reset-enemy-movement-variant.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:51 am
by jeffs
The problem with the IJA LBA just seems to be the Helen`s anti sub capabilities are modeled to be way too effective...That said, how to remedy it....
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:51 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
No, no changes. The only reason I agreed to the houserule regarding the Helens was because Castor felt strongly about it and I offered a compromise. I still think the sane thing to do is not send subs to patrol 1-2-3 hexes off major enemy airbases.
So, my original point remains, there is nothing wrong, strange or gamey with having your LBAs on ASW-patrol. That is how the Brits won the battle of the Atlantic after all. But since Castor thinks it is unfair that I can hit his subs, I offered a stacking-limit. Most players have stacking limits for their airunits, so I figured why not. Incidentally, I dont believe this will change one thing since under the HR I suggested I could have done exactly the same thing that I did in the past weeks in those ASW-battles off Japan. Check out my AAR thread and you will note that I never massed more than 2 Helen-wings on any airbase during those battles.
To use the KB like a huge ASW-machine is completely braindead however. Its a game-engine exploit much like the para-drop-to-reset-enemy-movement-variant.
of course....[:D][:D][:D]... [:'(]
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:34 pm
by mlees
I still think the sane thing to do is not send subs to patrol 1-2-3 hexes off major enemy airbases.
But... isn't that where your shipping is?
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:26 am
by bradfordkay
You can send subs in to patrol 1-3 hexes off big airbases, but you have to keep them moving so as to keep the DL down. This limits the effectiveness of the subs, which I believe is really what aerial ASW was mostly responsible for - preventing the subs from getting good chances at attacks.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:05 am
by pauk
I have another question for our honourable panzer jaeger hortlund:
What do you think about using 30 + PT boats at dot base!? Do you find this reasonable? Is this covered with house rules?
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:59 am
by Hortlund
ORIGINAL: pauk
I have another question for our honourable panzer jaeger hortlund:
What do you think about using 30 + PT boats at dot base!? Do you find this reasonable? Is this covered with house rules?
Since the dot-base is under enemy airspace at a location I cannot contest with my own airunits right now, the only possible defence I have against surface forces are PT-boats. What would you prefer? That I leave the base undefended?
To my knowledge, using PT-boats is not against the houserules. But you can only spawn 2 TFs per base or something like that.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:49 am
by pauk
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:00 am
by Hortlund
[:)]
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:04 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
You can send subs in to patrol 1-3 hexes off big airbases, but you have to keep them moving so as to keep the DL down. This limits the effectiveness of the subs, which I believe is really what aerial ASW was mostly responsible for - preventing the subs from getting good chances at attacks.
I moved them every day, this doesn´t help you at all when there are hundreds of bombers in range. 90% of the subs are spotted and a lot of them are attacked daily.
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:56 pm
by pauk
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
ORIGINAL: pauk
I have another question for our honourable panzer jaeger hortlund:
What do you think about using 30 + PT boats at dot base!? Do you find this reasonable? Is this covered with house rules?
Since the dot-base is under enemy airspace at a location I cannot contest with my own airunits right now, the only possible defence I have against surface forces are PT-boats. What would you prefer? That I leave the base undefended?
To my knowledge, using PT-boats is not against the houserules. But you can only spawn 2 TFs per base or something like that.
Next question:
What about more than max 12 PTs at BASE, which is agreed by house rules?
Breaking house rules is very fun and honourable, dont you think?
[:D]
RE: AAR-smalltalk corner
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:05 pm
by jumper
This issue is unsolvable. Despite the fact I don´t like seeing more then 12 PTs per base I get used to the fact I will see more then 12 PTs per base. I left this issue behind. The game goes on..