Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A)

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: fcharton


One quick question about the PP for border rule. So far, we agreed that it would apply to everyone, except Thai units that could move into Burma (I don't really care), and the Russian border, which can be crossed once the war is on (it would be ridiculous to prevent Kwantung army to try to move across the border once the war is on), but I was wondering about US troops and Alaska. Do you think a provision must be made to allow restricted US troops to move North into Canada? I'm pretty sure Joseph would agree, but I don't want to ask for something that is not needed, or exagerated.

I think this is so minor, I would ask Joseph and be surprised if he didn't concede that one. You need units in Alaska early and the only ones that can get there are unrestricted that can go on ships. By the time restricted units can move to Alaska, it is 1943 and they no longer matter than much. [;)]

I think some restricted units can be airlifted to Alaska by PBY, no? They would not have much equipment of course, but some Air BFs don't have any.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: fcharton


One quick question about the PP for border rule. So far, we agreed that it would apply to everyone, except Thai units that could move into Burma (I don't really care), and the Russian border, which can be crossed once the war is on (it would be ridiculous to prevent Kwantung army to try to move across the border once the war is on), but I was wondering about US troops and Alaska. Do you think a provision must be made to allow restricted US troops to move North into Canada? I'm pretty sure Joseph would agree, but I don't want to ask for something that is not needed, or exagerated.

I think this is so minor, I would ask Joseph and be surprised if he didn't concede that one. You need units in Alaska early and the only ones that can get there are unrestricted that can go on ships. By the time restricted units can move to Alaska, it is 1943 and they no longer matter than much. [;)]

I think some restricted units can be airlifted to Alaska by PBY, no? They would not have much equipment of course, but some Air BFs don't have any.

There is a recent tactic to take Alaska and bomb Canada. To thwart that, you need some ID's in place not base forces.

[kaleun]

ID?

[Yaab]

Infantry Division.

41st ID reporting for duty! We have priority for airlift to Alaska since our HQ is an air HQ!

[HansBolter]

Its wonderful people to be trashed by the community for attempting to set a moral compass.

You can posture all you want that because both sides can get away with an exploitation it is acceptable to do it.

Frankly I'm very grateful my parents spent my childhood lecturing me that two wrongs don't make a right.

While I won't dispute that how the game is played is between the players I will also point out that it isn't being played in a vacuum.

The game is being presented for public consumption and therefore one can presume that peer pressure is a valid option.

That makes my cry for fair play just as acceptable as all of your ganging up on me to shout me down.

Enjoy your game however you choose to structure it.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: kaleun

ID?

Infantry Division. Sorry.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its wonderful people to be trashed by the community for attempting to set a moral compass.

You can posture all you want that because both sides can get away with an exploitation it is acceptable to do it.

Frankly I'm very grateful my parents spent my childhood lecturing me that two wrongs don't make a right.

While I won't dispute that how the game is played is between the players I will also point out that it isn't being played in a vacuum.

The game is being presented for public consumption and therefore one can presume that peer pressure is a valid option.

That makes my cry for fair play just as acceptable as all of your ganging up on me to shout me down.

Enjoy your game however you choose to structure it.

Hans,

Sorry if you took my response as a personal attack on your ethics. It wasn't intended that way.

It was intended to point out that your definitions of "fair play" and exploitation in this instance are far from universally accepted. I, for one, disagree, and presented my rationale.

If your beliefs are so dogmatic that you cannot participate in that discussion, oh well.

As a strictly personal note: I play games both ways. I set the rule up front and then follow it.
And since you note you play AI (as do I), then you should also be aware that your opponent is completely without ethics: he can move any unit, regardless of HQ, anywhere without paying a single PP.

[Mike McCreery]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its wonderful people to be trashed by the community for attempting to set a moral compass.

You can posture all you want that because both sides can get away with an exploitation it is acceptable to do it.

Frankly I'm very grateful my parents spent my childhood lecturing me that two wrongs don't make a right.

While I won't dispute that how the game is played is between the players I will also point out that it isn't being played in a vacuum.

The game is being presented for public consumption and therefore one can presume that peer pressure is a valid option.

That makes my cry for fair play just as acceptable as all of your ganging up on me to shout me down.

Enjoy your game however you choose to structure it.

I dont see people trashing anyone, just voicing their opinions as you have.

The ganging up you seem to feel is that more people have an opposing viewpoint than you do.

Is that somehow unfair?

[fcharton]

@Hans: judging from what I have read on the forum, I think a majority of players actually agree with you, and either choose not to use PP discounts, or rule them out through a home rule. Things get a bit iffy, though, when you make it sound like a moral imperative. I think you'll find very few game communities where opponents respect and trust each other enough to post detailed AAR (for the enjoyment of peanut gallery regulars like us). I think this says something about their moral standards, much more than the fact that they might do something which seems gamey to you, or me.

Francois

[Mike McCreery]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

@Hans: judging from what I have read on the forum, I think a majority of players actually agree with you, and either choose not to use PP discounts, or rule them out through a home rule. Things get a bit iffy, though, when you make it sound like a moral imperative. I think you'll find very few game communities where opponents respect and trust each other enough to post detailed AAR (for the enjoyment of peanut gallery regulars like us). I think this says something about their moral standards, much more than the fact that they might do something which seems gamey to you, or me.

Francois

For the record I believe that I am under this rule in my game. I dont have a problem with the rule itself, just that it has to be implemented without question. It seems that most of the restricted units and partially restricted units are more of a political consideration than a strictly military one.

If the designers thought it was a huge game imbalance they have had plenty of time to fix it.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


If the designers thought it was a huge game imbalance they have had plenty of time to fix it.

+1

[HansBolter]

A few moments ago I posted a nasty retort to those of you with a death grip on this bone of contention you refuse to let go.

I broke a promise I gave to Francois in a PM that I would not respond to the continued trashing.

Unfortunately, I'm all too human.

I did, however, think clearly enough to wipe it clean and replace it with this.

You people should be as ashamed of yourselves as I am.[:(]

[Yaab]

Say 1800 turns x 50 PPs = 90,000 PPs for the entire game.

And yet, Soviet Guard Mechanised Corps costs 3900 points to change HQ and the Breakthrough Artillery Division (stuffed with arty tubes to the eyeballs) costs 4800 points to change HQ.

I would like to have a neatly organised chain of command, but it seems the PPs are too low globally.

41st always first off CONUSA!

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
41st always first off CONUSA!

Yes, I think we all got it the first time you explained it.
Your point has been made, some agreed, some disagreed, that's all there is to it. Now can we move forward, please?

Francois

[Yaab]

Sure thing.

[fcharton]

Before we begin

My opponent tells me I should receive the first turn this week-end. As I am limited to existing task forces and China, and not everything in China needs to be done at once, the war might begin early next week. Turn exchange rate will be slow at start, since Japanese early turns are big and I still lack time, but the war will be on.

So, before it all begins again, a few words on my plans as the good guys.

Japan begins the game with the initiative, a variety of strategic options, and a fairly large repertoire of openings, which all call for different reactions. As such, it makes little sense to define a first phase allied strategy in advance, but I think I can formulate a few general principles I am planning to follow in the early game.

First, the capture of China must be prevented. Many AAR have shown this is relatively easy to achieve, even with stacking limits, and I don’t think the Asian road module, which we will be using, makes a large difference here. It will force both sides to organize better, but it doesn’t change the main transportation axes, or tip the balance either way. I have no doubt my opponent knows this, and will play his best game there.

The defense of China is relatively simple. The bulk of the Chinese army should retreat into defensive terrain, and try to repair disablements. Support units are all the more important as supply is low, and the Chinese have a lot of them. A few small units will be left behind to try to disrupt Japanese lines of communication, but I want to avoid battle as much as I can.

Where should they retreat to? There is no point running all the way to the hills around Chungking. It just makes the resistance line thinner. I think the south can and should be defended forward. In the North , it all boils down to deciding whether to defend Sian, and try to establish a line from Taiyuan and Yenan to Tsiaotso, or just leave roadblocks there, and concentrate on a Nanning, Ankang, Lanchow line. So far, no one seems to have had much luck fighting east and north of Sian. Yet, there is a lot of defensible areas there, few good roads, and pretty decent units beginning there. It is worth a try.

So, the basic strategy in China would summarize as “run to the closest hill, and stack there with an HQ”. Meanwhile, I need to keep track of Japanese movements, and will try to set up a decent recon network, using my bombers to this effect (at the beginning of the war, my fighters will mostly train, there is very little interest in trying to confront him, except with the AVG)

I have not mentioned supply. Well, we all know it starts bad and gets worse. I will try to keep Burma allied for as long as I can, and send troops to launch an early offensive there, in late 1942, if I can. But I expect Joseph to be aware of that, and plan accordingly. On my list of opportunity targets, Burma is very high, but I have to assess enemy intentions first. If he goes there half-heartedly, or fails to reinforce once his initial advances are done…

In the Indies, I intend to complicate and delay his advance by trying to regroup my troops in as many places as I can. For its initial conquests, Japan relies on a lot of small, battalion-sized, units that will easily destroy any Dutch base force, or Australian company. By concentrating my forces, I want to make a lot of those attacks to fail. This will not stop Japan, but might make Joseph a bit more careful, and ultimately slow him.

For instance, I want to reinforce Port Blair if he does not take it at once, to make a paradrop capture unlikely, and force a landing which will take time and preparation. I want to add a few troops in Burma, to make a half-hearted attempt fail, and maybe evacuate those troops while he sets up his second invasion.

As many DEI units are restricted, this means a lot of air transport. This also raises one interesting question: should Malaya be evacuated? The third Indian corps, has a lot of units which would make perfect roadblocks. Could some of them be smuggled away? I have been toying with this idea for a while, but the lack of precedents makes me wonder whether it is doable against a competent opponent (and if you are not Nemo121…) Of course, it also depends on his initial invasions. If all of KB begins the war in the South China Sea, or if Mersing is invaded on the 8th, it gets very unlikely.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Before we begin

My opponent tells me I should receive the first turn this week-end. As I am limited to existing task forces and China, and not everything in China needs to be done at once, the war might begin early next week. Turn exchange rate will be slow at start, since Japanese early turns are big and I still lack time, but the war will be on.

So, before it all begins again, a few words on my plans as the good guys.

Japan begins the game with the initiative, a variety of strategic options, and a fairly large repertoire of openings, which all call for different reactions. As such, it makes little sense to define a first phase allied strategy in advance, but I think I can formulate a few general principles I am planning to follow in the early game.

First, the capture of China must be prevented. Many AAR have shown this is relatively easy to achieve, even with stacking limits, and I don’t think the Asian road module, which we will be using, makes a large difference here. It will force both sides to organize better, but it doesn’t change the main transportation axes, or tip the balance either way. I have no doubt my opponent knows this, and will play his best game there.

The defense of China is relatively simple. The bulk of the Chinese army should retreat into defensive terrain, and try to repair disablements. Support units are all the more important as supply is low, and the Chinese have a lot of them. A few small units will be left behind to try to disrupt Japanese lines of communication, but I want to avoid battle as much as I can.

Where should they retreat to? There is no point running all the way to the hills around Chungking. It just makes the resistance line thinner. I think the south can and should be defended forward. In the North , it all boils down to deciding whether to defend Sian, and try to establish a line from Taiyuan and Yenan to Tsiaotso, or just leave roadblocks there, and concentrate on a Nanning, Ankang, Lanchow line. So far, no one seems to have had much luck fighting east and north of Sian. Yet, there is a lot of defensible areas there, few good roads, and pretty decent units beginning there. It is worth a try.

So, the basic strategy in China would summarize as “run to the closest hill, and stack there with an HQ”. Meanwhile, I need to keep track of Japanese movements, and will try to set up a decent recon network, using my bombers to this effect (at the beginning of the war, my fighters will mostly train, there is very little interest in trying to confront him, except with the AVG)

Recent experience has highlighted the value of an aggressive Allied strategy in China in the opening months of the war. The Japanese dispositions are not ideal, especially in the south (around Canton) and in the south-east (around Wenchow). There is absolutely no reason for the Allied player to give the Japanese player a free hand to reorganize his troops.

Two simple moves that cause the Japanese problems early are:

Invest Canton - you won't take it from him, but you'll force him to fight you in x3 terrain, and it will mess with his capture of Hong Kong.

Send an army towards the coastal hexes around Amoy - These are, for the most part, weakly held, and a strong Chinese commitment will take them. You can combine this with aggressive moves around Wenchow to turn this into a much scarier move. You can have a great deal of AV amassed very close to Shanghai by January '42 - this is something the Japanese side can't ignore.

Send an army to flank Hankow from the south - The terrain here is fairly open, and it's about as far from major Japanese lines of communication as you can get. A big move here means that a victory will win you a lot of territory.

The combined result of these three moves is to wrest the initiative away from the Japanese player. Instead of combining his best units to form the forces to be committed at the schwerpunkt, you make him fight with what he has in the various regions. The isolated Japanese units around Canton and the coastal bases will cry out for reinforcement, and in the early game every unit that's in Southern China is one less that's not marching on Chungking or taking the DEI.

Plus, your supply is going to be bombed away by the Japanese anyways, so you may as well get some territory and VP's with the stockpiles that you have.

[fcharton]

And so it begins

@mind_messing: thanks for the suggestions. I have to say I am wary of attacking towards the coast, ie away from Chungking and my MLR. Somehow, it puts Japan in a central position, which invites defeat in detail. I agree with you that not attacking give Japan the time to reorganize, but it also allows KMT units to improve their positions, and perhaps to repair some of their disabled devices.

Joseph sent the turn tonight, together with the home rules. Apart from the usual first turn restrictions, we have agreed on :

- restricted units must pay PP to cross borders, except Thai units, that can move into Burma, US can move into Canada, and he russian border can be crossed once the Soviet are at war.
- no 4E bombers under 10 000 ft
- nothing flying over 25 000 ft for now. This ceiling will change (or disappear) as the game progresses
- no paradropping fragments.

We have no restrictions on strat or night bombing, but we will discuss issues as they appear.

As my first turn is limited to China and existing task forces, it was fairly easy to play. I saved Force Z, sent the US CV south, changed the destinations of a few cargoes, and sent the KMT to the hills. I should get the replay tomorrow, and will try to play the ugly second turn over the week end…

So, here we go, banzai, or whatever the good guys say in such a case...

[mind_messing]

@mind_messing: thanks for the suggestions. I have to say I am wary of attacking towards the coast, ie away from Chungking and my MLR. Somehow, it puts Japan in a central position, which invites defeat in detail. I agree with you that not attacking give Japan the time to reorganize, but it also allows KMT units to improve their positions, and perhaps to repair some of their disabled devices.

KMT units respawn for free. Japanese ones don't. You need to take full advantage of this rule if you plan to hold China. A strictly defensive strategy is doomed to fail, us Japanese players have gotten very good as of recent in cracking China.

The "defeat in detail" is the goal. You want the Japanese player to waste time, energy and units engaging your offensive spearheads in Southern/South-West China.

Take a 1k AV stack and send it straight for Amoy. You might get lucky and take Amoy. If you don't, withdraw it, send it to Wenchow, see if you can take anything on the cheap there. Nothing going on at Amoy? Cross the Yangstee and see if you can't cause havoc on the plains. Forget about supply lines and such - these troops are expendable and respawn. 1k Chinese AV is enough that the IJA player needs to commit at least several regiments if not a division, and that's what you're wanting.

Don't stop there. Invade Northern Vietnam. The Japanese garrison is pitiful, and the activated reinforcements are only a marginal improvement. Think on how Sqz will feel when he's trying to capture Singapore while the Chinese are taking Hanoi.

Rather than conventional warfare, use your offensive units as a big, marauding group of bandits. Go to those unimportant hexes that have 20 AV garrison, go to the dot hexes with no garrison, go to road and railway junctions. When your units are bombed or battered to the point that they can't take combat, fragment them and scatter them around to mess with hexside control.

Sure, with good play from the Japanese player these moves won't amount to much. It's no loss to you, the troops respawn. He can bomb your troops to dust - that's even better, he's not bombing you to get at your supply or industry.

The "hivemind" of the forum has decreed that the Allies "must" send everything to the hills to fight. It just ain't so. If anything, an aggressive Chinese strategy from the Allies can and will take the Japanese player off-guard. They've gotten used to Chinese hiding in the hills and forest.

[BBfanboy]

The British victory cheer is "Huzzah!", which pretty much sounds like the "Banzai!" sound clip the game plays. [:D]

Not sure what the American cheer would have been before "U-S-A, U-S-A". But feel free to sing "Les Marseillaise" any time. [:)]