Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:46 pm**

1. I'm trying to find a happy medium in which an enhanced Japan can fight on more even terms more deeply into the games. So if the R&D allows PH to produce better aircraft in 1943 and 1944, that's okay. On the flip side, I was a little worried about 1942, when Japanese airpower under PDU On can be a killer and yet PDU Off seems to swing things the other way. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium, so I'm hoping better Allied torps will even things out a bit.

I would be willing to play with this only if you saved Scenario 2 in another slot, added an upgrade path for the PB and slower SC that allow them to get the Type 95-2 DC to give them a better chance at damaging or sinking Allied subs. Either a late 42 or early 43 upgrade would work. As it now proposed, PH will need to increase his Merchant Shipyards to keep those transports coming out in a timely manner.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:04 pm**

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

While reliable torps will help counterbalance PDU on, non-historical first turn means he will devastate your sub force, significantly reducing your counterbalance and as pointed out unrealistic R&D will boost his air advantage. All in all looks like a bad deal to me.

lol, exactly my thought when I read about the deal with torps and PDU. If I would be PH and would know about subs being a major threat (more so than later because now his ASW stinks) I would take them all out at Manila. All of KB, the CVLs in the area and lots of Betties/Nells would ensure not one of the subs at Manila would survive the first day. It would take a year to replace those losses at Manila so you gained pretty much nothing with realistic torps off.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:08 pm**

That suits me fine.  With the "historic duds" in play, he hits Pearl, destroys a bunch of BBs, and my subs are free to do very litle for a year.  With "historic duds" off, he hits Manila, destroys a bunch of subs that would have been crippled for a year with bad torps, but I get to keep the slow BBs that I can make good use of.  So, whether he hits Manila or whether he hits Pearl, I get something good out of it that otherwise I wouldn't have had.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:22 pm**

Interesting tade off vs torps and PDU... I think you'll enjoy the torps Dan.

Good luck. Looking forward to reading your AAR as always.

Saw a model railroad show about Georgia this weekend, and thought of you, lol.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:27 pm**

I´m not very familiar with the game and certainly not in 43 and later, but arn´t you afraid this will really imbalance the airwar? In scenario 2 he can certainly outproduce you in terms of airframes? And with Realistic R&D off won´t he be able to to field his airframes way in advance? I woldn´t like to take on some of Japans really good 44 frames in 43 with Ks and Cobras [:)]

Again I really don´t know much about this stuff. What would be realistic to excpect with this setup? How far can PJH push it?

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:34 pm**

I faced a pretty advanced Japanase air arm in my Scenario Two match vs. Miller.  It was indeed painful.  But even in 1943 and 1944 with a very good Japanase air arm, the Allies should be powerful enough to make headway.  Truly, though, its 1942 that I'm worried about.  If the Allies can avoid a Japanese auto victory, then 1943 and 1944, while challenging, are no longer fraught with the same tension as is '42.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:35 pm**

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
When you responded to PH about playing him, I asked if he would consider playing with the modified Pwhex files found on DaBabes website to incorporated stacking limits. Are you going to try using them?? They add more realism, IMO.

Mike, can you say that again in English?

(Computers are mysterious magic to me - I sweat hours over trying to get an upgrade downloaded and installed and running; the thought of doing anything else gives me the vapors.)

\I'm not Mike but I might contribute ...

There is a map found here: http://sites.google.com/site/dababeswit ... limit-data Note there are two maps on this site the regular and extended .. I suggest the regular map ... These modified maps have stacking limits imposed on regular hexes along with the Atolls. In fact some of the places like Tabetitueua have even lower limits ...What this does is prevent huge stacks from overrunning the game as exceeding stacking limits invokes a double supply penality. The five divisions over the Stanley Owen mountians becomes impossible ..

It is has simple as saving the ol' map and replacing this map. Both sides have to do it ..

Back to the war ..

As the Allies I replaced the ol' map with this map after I overrun the IJA in Burma with little recourse. It has made a much more interesting game for me.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:39 pm**

The only thing I caution is that you have some sort of reasonable rule about advancement dates for Japanese aircraft. Rader has ably demonstrated that by pulling the right strings, aircraft can be advanced way to early. Perhaps agree to allow them not more that 3-4 months before the historic date.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:44 pm**

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The only thing I caution is that you have some sort of reasonable rule about advancement dates for Japanese aircraft. Rader has ably demonstrated that by pulling the right strings, aircraft can be advanced way to early. Perhaps agree to allow them not more that 3-4 months before the historic date.

I'm not 100% certain but I thought that happened due to a bug in one of the Betas that was fixed in a more recent Beta?

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:51 pm**

Keep in mind Rader owned China/India/DEI....I doubt Dan will let that happen..

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:34 pm**

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for the input and suggestions, gents. A few comments in reply:

1. I'm trying to find a happy medium in which an enhanced Japan can fight on more even terms more deeply into the games. So if the R&D allows PH to produce better aircraft in 1943 and 1944, that's okay. On the flip side, I was a little worried about 1942, when Japanese airpower under PDU On can be a killer and yet PDU Off seems to swing things the other way. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium, so I'm hoping better Allied torps will even things out a bit.

I've always felt PDU off helps the Allies as much sa the IJAAF. With it on, some of the upgrade paths are painful. That is unless you enjoy fighting with Boomerangs and P-39s

2. I think this will be a tough game. PH has the experience and level of aggression that should make 1942 a rip-roarer.

100% agree. He will give you the challenge I beleive you have been seeking

3. While PH (and Nemo) enjoy the mind games, I don't. I generally avoid commentary for that reason, because I don't like giving away intel, and because I strive to avoid comments that can seem boastful (even an innocent comment coming after a big victory can strike an opponent the wrong way). So, my way of playing the mental aspect of the game is to ignore it.

That is exactly what I would do. I have no use for those that like to play "the game within the game" card.

4. We have no house rules. Were I playing Nemo, and were Nemo strident in the "no house rules" proclamation, the first thing I would do is empty out both Manila and Pearl Harbor. But in many games that just won't sit right even in a "no holds bar" atmosphere. So I won't do anything radical on the opening day of the war.

Historically, eight of the submarines that start at Manila were not there on 7/8 December. I am at work so I do not have the exact numbers. Going from memory: one was at Subic Bay, two were at Mariveles (Bataan), one or two were at Corrigedor, one arrived at Manila on the night of the 8th (7th east of Intern'l Dateline), and several others were at sea. So, historically I wouldn't hesitate to move a handful of subs out of Manila on the first turn.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:17 pm**

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The only thing I caution is that you have some sort of reasonable rule about advancement dates for Japanese aircraft. Rader has ably demonstrated that by pulling the right strings, aircraft can be advanced way to early. Perhaps agree to allow them not more that 3-4 months before the historic date.

I'm not 100% certain but I thought that happened due to a bug in one of the Betas that was fixed in a more recent Beta?

That is what I thought but Rader and a few other Japanese players confirmed that it can be done with the proper manipulation of the production system.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:43 pm**

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The only thing I caution is that you have some sort of reasonable rule about advancement dates for Japanese aircraft. Rader has ably demonstrated that by pulling the right strings, aircraft can be advanced way to early. Perhaps agree to allow them not more that 3-4 months before the historic date.

I'm not 100% certain but I thought that happened due to a bug in one of the Betas that was fixed in a more recent Beta?

I think most of Rader's work was done pre-bug fix for production / factory repair .. I am not sure any IJFB's have posted incredable production numbers since the lastest release. [&:]

That is what I thought but Rader and a few other Japanese players confirmed that it can be done with the proper manipulation of the production system.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:52 pm**

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for the input and suggestions, gents. A few comments in reply:

1. I'm trying to find a happy medium in which an enhanced Japan can fight on more even terms more deeply into the games. So if the R&D allows PH to produce better aircraft in 1943 and 1944, that's okay. On the flip side, I was a little worried about 1942, when Japanese airpower under PDU On can be a killer and yet PDU Off seems to swing things the other way. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium, so I'm hoping better Allied torps will even things out a bit.

I've always felt PDU off helps the Allies as much sa the IJAAF. With it on, some of the upgrade paths are painful. That is unless you enjoy fighting with Boomerangs and P-39s

2. I think this will be a tough game. PH has the experience and level of aggression that should make 1942 a rip-roarer.

100% agree. He will give you the challenge I beleive you have been seeking

3. While PH (and Nemo) enjoy the mind games, I don't. I generally avoid commentary for that reason, because I don't like giving away intel, and because I strive to avoid comments that can seem boastful (even an innocent comment coming after a big victory can strike an opponent the wrong way). So, my way of playing the mental aspect of the game is to ignore it.

That is exactly what I would do. I have no use for those that like to play "the game within the game" card.

4. We have no house rules. Were I playing Nemo, and were Nemo strident in the "no house rules" proclamation, the first thing I would do is empty out both Manila and Pearl Harbor. But in many games that just won't sit right even in a "no holds bar" atmosphere. So I won't do anything radical on the opening day of the war.

Historically, eight of the submarines that start at Manila were not there on 7/8 December. I am at work so I do not have the exact numbers. Going from memory: one was at Subic Bay, two were at Mariveles (Bataan), one or two were at Corrigedor, one arrived at Manila on the night of the 8th (7th east of Intern'l Dateline), and several others were at sea. So, historically I wouldn't hesitate to move a handful of subs out of Manila on the first turn.

Actually given scenario #2 and the build up .. I am suspecting in Real Life the Allies would be far more prepared. At least in the Book "At Dawn we Slept" the notion is introduced that our lack of preparedness was based on the IJ's current state of affairs and desperation. Simply, Japan was in no position to take on the United States and thus would not do so. Bad calcualtions on the IJ for thinking the US would enter the war without being attacked, and very bad calcualtion on the US for thinking the IJ had the some context as the rest of the world.

Anyway, I would think the build up in Scenario #2 is not of a economically desperate Japan, but of a pure Imperialist desire for agression like Genghis Khan. I would sense once Japan reached this level of Military power the United States would have been more readily to react. At least have the patrols up to scatter in case of attack .. [;)]

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 pm**

I've always felt PDU off helps the Allies as much sa the IJAAF. With it on, some of the upgrade paths are painful. That is unless you enjoy fighting with Boomerangs and P-39s

For an allied player willing to put in thought and effort, the P-39 Airacobra can be a surprisingly useful machine. They are excellent at ground attack where you don't have the necessary airfield and other support for tac-bombers. They are murder to Betties flying beyond Zero escort range -- the Japanese player needs to be kept honest, after all. And if the IJN uses small craft uncovered by LRCAP, they make great "barge-busters".

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:05 pm**

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for the input and suggestions, gents. A few comments in reply:

1. I'm trying to find a happy medium in which an enhanced Japan can fight on more even terms more deeply into the games. So if the R&D allows PH to produce better aircraft in 1943 and 1944, that's okay. On the flip side, I was a little worried about 1942, when Japanese airpower under PDU On can be a killer and yet PDU Off seems to swing things the other way. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium, so I'm hoping better Allied torps will even things out a bit.

I've always felt PDU off helps the Allies as much sa the IJAAF. With it on, some of the upgrade paths are painful. That is unless you enjoy fighting with Boomerangs and P-39s

2. I think this will be a tough game. PH has the experience and level of aggression that should make 1942 a rip-roarer.

100% agree. He will give you the challenge I beleive you have been seeking

3. While PH (and Nemo) enjoy the mind games, I don't. I generally avoid commentary for that reason, because I don't like giving away intel, and because I strive to avoid comments that can seem boastful (even an innocent comment coming after a big victory can strike an opponent the wrong way). So, my way of playing the mental aspect of the game is to ignore it.

That is exactly what I would do. I have no use for those that like to play "the game within the game" card.

4. We have no house rules. Were I playing Nemo, and were Nemo strident in the "no house rules" proclamation, the first thing I would do is empty out both Manila and Pearl Harbor. But in many games that just won't sit right even in a "no holds bar" atmosphere. So I won't do anything radical on the opening day of the war.

Historically, eight of the submarines that start at Manila were not there on 7/8 December. I am at work so I do not have the exact numbers. Going from memory: one was at Subic Bay, two were at Mariveles (Bataan), one or two were at Corrigedor, one arrived at Manila on the night of the 8th (7th east of Intern'l Dateline), and several others were at sea. So, historically I wouldn't hesitate to move a handful of subs out of Manila on the first turn.

For the record

Sturgeon should be at Bataan
Salmon should be at sea west of Luzon
Snapper should be at sea in bound to Manila (just SE of Batangas)
Porpoise should be at Subic Bay (or Clark Field on the stock map)
Two S-Boats at Sea (in stock set-up)

I know that is just four but I would have no problem sending those four out.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:43 pm**

CR;

If you had just eaten some more paint chips when you were a kid you wouldn't have to make thing so hard on yourself.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:26 pm**

After much thought I plan to read both AARs of this game. A matchup this good promises to be a learning experience for the readers, IMHO. In order to avoid OpSec breaches I'll limit my commentary to the occasional "atta boy," but know I'll be avidly watching from the cheap seats!

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:00 pm**

After much thought I plan to read both AARs of this game. A matchup this good promises to be a learning experience for the readers, IMHO. In order to avoid OpSec breaches

Same here -- but I may occasionally make a remark on one AAR if I haven't read the other AAR yet. (Knowledge should be shared . . .)

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:05 pm**

Any idea when this may start Dan? Its like waiting for a title bout.

Which reminds me, what happened to Adm Mitchner's AAR.......hmmmmmmmmm

Matrix Games Forums

War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)