Matrix Games Forums

This sounds reasonable but comments
 
1) What if he takes Java first where will these BBs be ?
2) Why split force Z from the R class ? Come in with 4 BBs and obviously destroyers  , prob 2 of your BBs will be badly damaged the survivors come back the next day. If he only brings 2 BBs and say 6 CAs then it will help a lot.
3) What subs and light forces (destroyers) will you use.

1. IF he is going for Oosthaven or Benkoenen then he really must take Java first. With his BBs operating around Balikpapan I think this supports the conclusion that he is trying to cut off Java from support and land there. That's fine though, I'm down to about the last 100 AV to evacuate from Batavia. His trap will close only on the perma-restricted units. Hell, it looks like I might even get a good portion of the 4th US Marine Regiment out of Manilla before it falls [:)]

I have some AOs out west of Java and if I decide to go with this plan I'll just park an AO somewhere west of Java and top up the fuel tanks before I go charging in.


2. Why split Force Z? Because the key isn't to sink his BBs or CAs. That's very near-sighted. The key is to disrupt his landings over the longest period of time possible in order to allow my land-based reserves to reach the invasion beaches and prevent him gaining a foothold. THAT is the key. Obviously though the situation at the time will dictate what I do. If the situation at the time shows sending in 4 BBs together will work better then that's what I'll do. If he is very slow to land at Benkoenen or Oosthaven and my reserves reach there before he begins landing then it may well make sense that I send in the 4 BBs together. I am, however, assuming he will not move that slowly and obviously.


3. Whatever I have available. It all depends on how much they got shot up over the next week or two and how rapidly they repair. Decoying KB into the Marshalls will give me an additional 2 weeks before he can land in Palembang though so that'll be very useful indeed.



February 4th 1942
Allied shipping begins to starfish. A small TF covered by a CA TF is unloading at Kusaie. This is only a small force of about 150 guys or so ( It is something like the Ratoanga Detachment or something ) since Kusaie is unoccupied. It looks like the 4 IJN ships I hit must have been either an SC TF or an ASW TF. It doesn't look like they unloaded anything.

The Ponape invasion force is now just 1 hex from Ponape under cover of my 4 CVs. It would appear the dodge to the north-east surprised Mike as he had sent a DD TF to a position just north-west of Kusaie island... Presumably he thought I was going to continue north and he was looking for a night combat with some of my invasion TFs.

Unfortunately for him it looks like 6 of his 7 DDs have been sunk over the day of concentrated aerial attack by my CV-based air. One DD dodged all of the bombs but one DD isn't much of a threat--- especially when one considers I brought 10 BBs along for the party. My Devastators were perfectly placed ( 5 hexes from the DDs ) and didn't use any torpedoes. So, about 200 sorties have been used up between my 4 CVs but 10 enemy ships ( 8 DDs and 2 PBs ) have been mauled and all of my torpedoes are still available.

I conducted paradrops on Eniwetok and Roi-Namur. I also took Bikini Atoll by paratroop --- these paras have been waiting at Marcus Island for the past 3 weeks for this opportunity. It appears that the enemy has about 40 AV at Eniwetok and about 70 at Roi-Namur. Both of those bases should fall easily. Excellent news indeed.

I've seen NO Netties anywhere which makes me suspicious that he is trying to co-ordinate them with mini-KB or daddy-KB... Still, by my reckoning it'll be 5 days before KB proper can be in the area. By that time Ponape, Kusaie, Eniwetok, Roi-Namur and Maloelap/Wotje should be in my hands. With the uncrating of the 200+ land-based planes I have available and flying my CV-based air off onto land bases that should give KB a rather unfavourable situation. Sure they can attack but my CVs and warships can run as fast as he can hunt and my APs and AKs should be mostly out of the area by then also.

If he chooses to swap airframe for airframe then that'll give him a great exchange rate but, in the long run, seriously damage his capability to cover his invasion of Sumatra---- which is the whole point of this invasion. The Marshalls are meaningless except as a tool to manipulate Mike into unfavourable actions.


In other news... Mike and I have been chatting a bit about the game and some of his previous comments about being upset about issues in the game have been clarified. It seems he actually got angry about my reply to his question as to whether or not I was reinforcing Singapore. He asked and I obviously replied that, yes, I was and took the opportunity to point out that as my empty ( although I didn't tell him that ) weren't showing troop losses when sunk this showed that I was moving supplies into Singers to have it hold longer. It seems that his previous opponents would, in such a situation, answer him honestly and say something along the lines of "No, I'm evacuating Singapore and reinforcing Palembang". Frankly such a reply would astound me. Its a wargame, telling your opponent your plans is not only stupid but it removes the challenge of the game.

In any case seeing as this upset Mike and since I'm not interested in playing a game which is unenjoyable to him I'm going to be very careful from now on to avoid such questions entirely or give him an obviously joking response. A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.

I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer.... Well, in my view it would I suppose but I guess everyone's different.


In any case tomorrow I'll land at Ponape and try to take Kusaie. The day after that the invasion TFs should be offshore of Eniwetok and Roi-Namur and a day after that they should be off Wotje and Maleolap and the other islands. I'm going to let his Netties hit the forces at Ponape as it is more important to properly cover the invasions of Roi-Namur and other areas at this stage. Once Roi-Namur is taken I can base my AEs and AGs etc there and resupply my CVs and SC TFs and get ready to fight ( or run away from ) whatever he has coming my way.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


In other news... Mike and I have been chatting a bit about the game and some of his previous comments about being upset about issues in the game have been clarified. It seems he actually got angry about my reply to his question as to whether or not I was reinforcing Singapore. He asked and I obviously replied that, yes, I was and took the opportunity to point out that as my empty ( although I didn't tell him that ) weren't showing troop losses when sunk this showed that I was moving supplies into Singers to have it hold longer. It seems that his previous opponents would, in such a situation, answer him honestly and say something along the lines of "No, I'm evacuating Singapore and reinforcing Palembang". Frankly such a reply would astound me. Its a wargame, telling your opponent your plans is not only stupid but it removes the challenge of the game.

In any case seeing as this upset Mike and since I'm not interested in playing a game which is unenjoyable to him I'm going to be very careful from now on to avoid such questions entirely or give him an obviously joking response. A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.

I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer.... Well, in my view it would I suppose but I guess everyone's different.

Mike made a number of comments in his AAR, as I mentioned to you once before, about the "test" nature of the game.

As he put it- "The intent is to test out AE for Fionn to port over his EA mod."

He also commented that the two of you had been having some "pretty candid discussions of the map and game".

I have the impression that the two things taken together led him to the false assumption that you wouldn't take the opportunity to plant misinformation during the course of what he believed were candid discussions. And, when you did he saw it as a bit of 'bait and switch', so to speak.

Now that he knows that your discussions aren't as candid as he thought they were, I doubt the two of you will have any more problems.

As to your question, all I can say is that it depends on the nature of the game you two have established.

In playing war games with my friends, when were were both climbing up the learning curve with a new game as you two are, we were frequently very open about our strategies because learning the game mechanics was the primary goal and bouncing things back and forth was sometimes helpful to that process.

The nature of the game we had established on such occasions was "learning experience" and victory in such a game wouldn't count toward gloating rights.

It was only in later games, after we had both learned how to play, that we both became more secretive and our interaction took on the cast of cut-throats willing to do anything to win. I suppose one could consider the nature of those games as "death struggles" where anything and everything was fair.

But, we both knew which sort of game we were engaged in.

Perhaps the above has also been Mike's experience, and the candid discussions you two were having informed his belief that the nature of the game you were playing was "learning experience" instead of "death struggle", even though you'd not really given him any real reason to believe that was the case.

You certainly didn't do anything wrong, but I suspect that your willingness to engage in candid discussions with Mike about the game inadvertently skewed his idea as to the nature of the game you two are engaged in.

Thanks for the input DW... Aye, I suppose I have a dichotomy in discussions.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss game engine issues openly and, even, if I see an opponent making a mistake to set them right and tell them why, because of the game engine, things aren't working out the way they want ... e.g. In my game vs Damian I gave him hints about his Oscar IIs compared to Pe-2s until he started using Oscar IIs as high-altitude dive-bombing/kami platforms flying above my CAP.


But when it comes to in-game strategies I certainly wouldn't spill the beans as to my plans unless there was an advantage in it for me... I guess Mike may not have realised that distinction. Or, at least, that I operated that distinction.

*Fingers crossed we can avoid this in future* Since he said it I've been pretty careful in not saying anything which could be misinterpreted so, hopefully, that'll lessen his annoyance.

He's upset about getting duff information from his opponent ? [&:]. While I'm not above lying a bit in my chats my opponent knows not to ask such things. As you said its a wargame not an exercise in truth management [;)].

You could just go with the usual "Cannot confirm or deny XYZ" , that way he's not going to be upset by obvious lies but then again why should he expect honesty on future events? OK if a months gone past I might be prepared to discuss what and why i did a certain action (assuming i actually remember it in any detail).

Viva la differance

Hehe second that. I take your comments always with a grain of salt as you do with mine for sure.
Thats almost never an outright lie as far as I´m concerned, but a bit of media is part of the game IMO.

Always compare what you hear with hard data. Here we go Tokyo Rose. [:D]

A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.

I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer....

I consider (and I think I'm far from alone) that it is fair game to decline to answer, or give an accurate but not useful answer. Giving out falsehoods, however, is crossing the line. If asked whether or not you are reinforcing Singapore, you can reply that "security is very tight concerning operations in Southern Malaysia", or "no official word has been given, but troops have been instructed to leave their cold-weather gear at home".

Really Harlock, see that's just weird to me... I would think that in a conflict giving out falsehoods is part and parcel of maskirovka.

It is interesting though to see the different viewpoints out there. It really would never have occurred to me to think that people would be upset by an opponent telling them an in-game untruth. I always just viewed that as part of the game.

Well, I guess this is another thing to add to pre-game discussions so as to make sure everyone's on the same page.

I agree with Capt. Harlock, though it's a fine line. I have made deliberately misleading comments like "Hmmm.....looks like you're giving up on Fiji", when I think the opposite to be true. But I haven't stated something like "I am evacuating Fiji", when in fact I am reinforcing. Semantics, I guess, the first is misleading opponent what I am THINKING (fair game), and the second flat out what I am DOING (probably over the line).

At any rate, I think you should be honest on gameplay. For example, Cuttlefish and I are just trying to figure out what is FOW and what isn't....like on ASW attacks, he'll get "Ki-21 reports HIT on SS Shad", and ask if it's true. I'll be honest, because we both want to know, for example, if ASW works or not. We need to know what info is generally correct, and what is bunk.

I would also answer questions on aircraft settings, or orders, etc, to know what the heck happened and why.

Aye but there's a huge difference between " I had my fighters set at 40% CAP, I find that works well" --- which helps you and your opponent figure out jsut what the hell is happening in-game but it is another situation entirely to be expected to give up a strategic plan...


If you don't have to be honest about what you're thinking then just why would you have to be honest about what you are doing strategically?

Being open about operational issues to help understand the black box that is combat resolution etc is all well and good but, gees, in a chess match you'd never be expected to tell your opponent your plan. If he misreads it then that's his tough and all part of the game.

Gameplay yes, strategy no. Lying, bsing and propaganda are half the fun/strategy of it imho. As said above, another thing to add to pre-game discussions.

Edited for blatant grammar violation.

I couldn't have said it any better Q-Ball. My opponents and I also ask about game mechanics and how they may have affected the outcome of an engagement to better understand gameplay. Misleading comments are avoided, that's what recon is for. I asked after a carrier raid once, where they might be heading after, I was told Shangri La and that worked for me.

I think there has to be some discourse between opponents for sure, including some half truths at times. However, the intention in this matchup seems not to be all about winning, things are being tested and new strategies tried, so I think to purposely try and mislead your opponent in private discussions just doesn't sit well. That being said, I don't know the context of these discussions, so I won't judge, but I wouldn't intentionally mislead nor blindly accept what was told to me either [:D].

Well just to clarify where the misleading was.

Mike asked if I was evacuating or reinforcing Singers.... I replied that I was reinforcing it.


Simple. Any time we've talked about the effects of airstrikes, artillery, combat vessels or anything operational like that things have been fully open but, hell, if someones asks me about the lynchpin of my strategy --- reinforcing Singers vs evacuating to Northern Sumatra I jost don't see how I can be expected to torpedo my entire war plan for 1942 by being expected to give him a straight answer.

I'm fully agreeable to agreeing to disagree though. But I think it is fair to say that when I go looking for an EA game if people think that opponents should divulge their strategic plans to eachother in emails when asked then they'll probably not enjoy a game with me.

It is interesting to see the different opinions but, really, this just mystifies me. I've played chess competitively etc and the idea of telling one's opponent one's plans during a tournament is just out of this world.


Honest question: Could this be an American thing? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I do wonder if, perhaps, the social conventions around match play might be different in the US vs Ireland/UK? I'm asking because I've found that sometimes my American friends and I can find that our most basic assumptions are where the difference lies... and that we'd never considered such differences in basic assumptions might exist.

So, is the whole - don't engage in mind games as part of the game belief the standard belief in the US?

Interesting discussion. When I studied at the Swedish equivalent of the ACSC, I wrote my thesis on operational deception. I had (of course) to read quite a few books on the subject. One side note I made in the thesis that came from the books, was that there seems to exist some cultural bias towards using (or not using) deception.

Quote; ”In the meantime [our editor] had discovered, just as we had at the Pentagon, that cheating and deception were [considered] un-American”.
(Bell, Bowyer och Whaley, Barton, 1982, Cheating and Deception, introduction page 28).

This was also commented upon in a lecture held by a prof Milan Vego (professor of operations at the US Naval War College) who commented upon deception like this; "We [the USA] are not very good at deception. We are too powerful for that".

Grollub, interesting as always....

To add to this... I wouldn't be massively adherent to western doctrine and, instead, would hew much more closely to the ideal espoused by Tukhachevsky ( although not practiced by the Red Army until at least early 1944 due to operational and personnel failures ). In any case in any maskirovka operation the rule of thumb is that at least 1/3rd of the total force committed to the operation ( Army, Front, Strategic Direction etc ) be committed to the deception operation which helps promote the success of the main thrust through misdirection of the enemy.

I know others mightn't agree but in my mind the Kuriles, China Burma and the Marshalls operations are all operations supporting the primary Strategic Direction ( the DEI ). China can't support a true deception operation but the Kuriles, Marshalls and the attacks in Burma are all genuine deception/misdirection operations albeit that there's an element of desynchronisation thrown in.

Obviously how you interpret these things depends on your mindset. One person's deception operation is another's attrition operation... I think the key though is the utter centrality of deception operations to operational ( and higher level ) art in many military doctrines/cultures. The more I've read this thread etc the more I've come to wonder if what is viewed as clever deception in some countries/cultures is viewed as "being a sneaky rat" ( unfavourably ) in some other cultures on the forum. Again, this isn't to say anyone's right or wrong, I'm just genuinely intellectually curious.

American sports ( baseball, basketball and American football ) all have trick plays, misdirection and deception as components of their play/ transfer of instructions from coaches to players but I know that there are very strict limits as to what is considered fair or not... Snooping the opponent's play book in american football is considered bad form - I remember reading that a coach got into serious trouble for that one one of the professional teams last year. I think in rugby if you broke the opposing team's code then a coach would be applauded for using that to crush them. OTOH rugby is quite a bit more gladiatorial and unsparing.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

<snip>

Honest question: Could this be an American thing? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I do wonder if, perhaps, the social conventions around match play might be different in the US vs Ireland/UK? I'm asking because I've found that sometimes my American friends and I can find that our most basic assumptions are where the difference lies... and that we'd never considered such differences in basic assumptions might exist.

So, is the whole - don't engage in mind games as part of the game belief the standard belief in the US?

Quite possibly; the social norm here is when asked a question that one shouldn't reasonably answer, one evades or ignores the question rather than lying. If you're on good terms with the interrogator, you might even challenge them on the reasonableness of the question.

I'd expect an american conversion on that to run something like?

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Wouldn't you like to know?

or

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Dude, you know I'm not going to answer that?

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Grollub, interesting as always....

To add to this... I wouldn't be massively adherent to western doctrine and, instead, would hew much more closely to the ideal espoused by Tukhachevsky ( although not practiced by the Red Army until at least early 1944 due to operational and personnel failures ). In any case in any maskirovka operation the rule of thumb is that at least 1/3rd of the total force committed to the operation ( Army, Front, Strategic Direction etc ) be committed to the deception operation which helps promote the success of the main thrust through misdirection of the enemy.

I know others mightn't agree but in my mind the Kuriles, China Burma and the Marshalls operations are all operations supporting the primary Strategic Direction ( the DEI ). China can't support a true deception operation but the Kuriles, Marshalls and the attacks in Burma are all genuine deception/misdirection operations albeit that there's an element of desynchronisation thrown in.

Obviously how you interpret these things depends on your mindset. One person's deception operation is another's attrition operation... I think the key though is the utter centrality of deception operations to operational ( and higher level ) art in many military doctrines/cultures. The more I've read this thread etc the more I've come to wonder if what is viewed as clever deception in some countries/cultures is viewed as "being a sneaky rat" ( unfavourably ) in some other cultures on the forum. Again, this isn't to say anyone's right or wrong, I'm just genuinely intellectually curious.

American sports ( baseball, basketball and American football ) all have trick plays, misdirection and deception as components of their play/ transfer of instructions from coaches to players but I know that there are very strict limits as to what is considered fair or not... Snooping the opponent's play book in american football is considered bad form - I remember reading that a coach got into serious trouble for that one one of the professional teams last year. I think in rugby if you broke the opposing team's code then a coach would be applauded for using that to crush them. OTOH rugby is quite a bit more gladiatorial and unsparing.

Very well put, Nemo.

To be preemptive - my own view on what's ok or not ok is basically that anything that concerns understanding of the game engine, I answer truthfully. Anything else is fair deception game. I might be truthful. Or not. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
<snip>

Obviously how you interpret these things depends on your mindset. One person's deception operation is another's attrition operation... I think the key though is the utter centrality of deception operations to operational ( and higher level ) art in many military doctrines/cultures. The more I've read this thread etc the more I've come to wonder if what is viewed as clever deception in some countries/cultures is viewed as "being a sneaky rat" ( unfavourably ) in some other cultures on the forum. Again, this isn't to say anyone's right or wrong, I'm just genuinely intellectually curious.
<snip>

I think there's another facet here which is worth examining and its the usual American/western critique of operational *complexity*. Its a common american complaint about Midway for example, to say that the Japanese plan was too complicated with too many moving parts and hence bound to come unsprung. Had the Japanese just massed their entire fleet and headed to midway, they'd had bulled their way through, surprise appearance of American carriers or not.

I think American operational preference is for simplicity of execution, executed with extreme violence and force at the decisive point. Complexity might go wrong, complexity adds uncertainty. Simple plans are lower risk, expecially in an operational environment where you expect to have a force advantage over any conceivable adversary.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

1. IF he is going for Oosthaven or Benkoenen then he really must take Java first. With his BBs operating around Balikpapan I think this supports the conclusion that he is trying to cut off Java from support and land there. That's fine though, I'm down to about the last 100 AV to evacuate from Batavia. His trap will close only on the perma-restricted units. Hell, it looks like I might even get a good portion of the 4th US Marine Regiment out of Manilla before it falls [:)]

I have some AOs out west of Java and if I decide to go with this plan I'll just park an AO somewhere west of Java and top up the fuel tanks before I go charging in.

re Java that is logical , your PBYs must be pretty busy ...

2. Why split Force Z? Because the key isn't to sink his BBs or CAs. That's very near-sighted. The key is to disrupt his landings over the longest period of time possible in order to allow my land-based reserves to reach the invasion beaches and prevent him gaining a foothold. THAT is the key. Obviously though the situation at the time will dictate what I do. If the situation at the time shows sending in 4 BBs together will work better then that's what I'll do. If he is very slow to land at Benkoenen or Oosthaven and my reserves reach there before he begins landing then it may well make sense that I send in the 4 BBs together. I am, however, assuming he will not move that slowly and obviously.

Sending 4 isnt to damage his BBs ,its just 4 could sink 1-2 of his BBs and than get amongst his transports which could even force him to abandond the landings esp if he only sends 2 BBs 2 couldnt do this. I just think if you send 4 ,2 will prob have little damage. However if he manages 6 BBs and 6+ CAs then sending 4 will be bad...but this seems unlikely unless they come out of the shop early or he takes the escorts from KB.
re slow and obvious , it has been so far.....

Yes normally an evasive answer would be used but in this case that gives the games away , why evade an answer it must be important ...It would invite some certain recon whereas if the question was never asked this may not have come..

Best solution is such questions are not asked and it is in the pre-game.

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

<snip>

Honest question: Could this be an American thing? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I do wonder if, perhaps, the social conventions around match play might be different in the US vs Ireland/UK? I'm asking because I've found that sometimes my American friends and I can find that our most basic assumptions are where the difference lies... and that we'd never considered such differences in basic assumptions might exist.

So, is the whole - don't engage in mind games as part of the game belief the standard belief in the US?

Quite possibly; the social norm here is when asked a question that one shouldn't reasonably answer, one evades or ignores the question rather than lying. If you're on good terms with the interrogator, you might even challenge them on the reasonableness of the question.

I'd expect an american conversion on that to run something like?

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Wouldn't you like to know?

or

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Dude, you know I'm not going to answer that?