Page 154 of 199
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:38 am
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
This makes defense way too powerful. You simply have no tools available to combat this. If the escort mission wasn´t so ridiculously penalized the attacker would have at least one tool to strike back at this CAP hives and would force the defender to spread out on multiple bases instead.
But I doubt the post will lead to anything. The community (well, one or two very loud individuals really [8|]) is completely unwilling to try and evolve the game and rather have a static and stagnant game because it suits their needs.
You have several tools to combat it. They just aren't the historic tools.
In short, you have to cripple the economy early enough that Japan can't:
1) Afford the HI to build the planes and engines in the first place.
2) Afford the pilot tax in the mid- and late-game.
If you let him build the planes and pilots the use of supply as a stand-in for avgas will allow huge air defenses. Changing this at its base requires blowing up the core assumptions of the game. So long as "avgas" can be produced by any and all LI with local non-Oil Resources you can't beat him in the air if you let him build. Pilot training will help the Allies some, but the quantity differences are too stark in a PDU ON game to overcome by brute force. At this point in the game's life this is pretty well known. In this particular game you had other things you had to do in 1942/1943 than destroy his economic base. But that's what you have to do to avoid late-war mega-air. And play with PDU OFF.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:25 am
by JocMeister
Agree with everything you said. But its a shame the game comes down to that. The ONLY viable strategy as I see it is to avoid air combat as much as possible. Just save planes and pilots until you can get within range of the HI and/or oil. Every lost pilot and plane before that is a waste. A rough generalization of course but I think that statement covers pretty well how an allied players mindset should be when playing a competent Japanese player that has done the proper planning for a late war game.
There are only 3 targets worth losing planes and pilots over.
-Oil
-HI/LI
-AC factories
Another rough advice would be to forget any notion of attrition the Japanese by aerial battle. Its not going to happen. Planes are DIRT cheap. 20.000 planes for 1 single ID. No question about what is easiest to achieve. In the last couple of months I have destroyed 25-30 IDs worth of troops. Do the math on how many planes that is and its very obvious trying any kind of attrition in the air is a complete waste of time.
I´m already using what I wrote above as gospel in my other game. I have a healthy pool of 200 4Es saved up together with some 500 P39/P40s in 11/42. My opponent won´t see many 4Es before I reach his oil...And I will only fight defensively in the air. Fun? No. Probably not for my opponent either. But you have to play within the limits of the game. Japan is given a fantasy air force. The best way to fight that is simply to avoid it. Fight were you are strong on the sea and ground instead.
This will be how the game is played in the future. Mark my words. Its all about numbers and nothing else. This I strongly believe is extremely bad for the game. When one of the biggest and most important aspects of the game is no longer played by one side because its so poorly balanced we are going to start losing players from both camps. I can absolutely understand Japanese players reluctance to start giving some of what is quite arguable their biggest (even only) asset. But this HAS to be balanced somehow. Its making the game boring. For BOTH sides.
As with everything players are driving things to the absolute edge. The game HAS to evolve with the players or you will end up with nothing more then extreme tactics that in turn gives birth to other extreme tactics to counter that. And in the end we will have a game that is probably not very fun to play. This would not be the first game that went down that way.
I guess what I´m trying to say is that the air war simply isn´t any fun. It should be the pillar on which this game rests. But its turning into an anchor that is dragging it down instead. It will take some time before people start realizing that but its I´m absolutely convincted that is how it will end.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:27 am
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
------------------------
Logistics
------------------------
The news supply chain is now up an running. I´ve decided to skip using the Marinas as a "halfway point". So stuff go directly from PH to Luzon. This means they will have to refuel on the return leg at Midway. So I have a couple of high END xAKs sitting at Midway refueling the TFs returning. Works well.
Supply is once again back up at 3 million on Luzon and fuel is nearing a million. In a month it will be at least double that.
Good, ensuring that the GI's get their subscription magazines and the
Stars and Stripes is vital to the war effort.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:32 am
by mind_messing
On a more serious note, the Allies (the Americans, at least) should be allowed to draw replacement planes in exchange for political points to represent planes being diverted from Europe to the Pacific. Considering how PP's start to become less and less important to the Allies as the number of unrestricted units snowballs, this could be an effective solution to balance the two sides.
In order to moderate it's use, better performing aircraft should be more expensive, as should aircraft that have only just recently went in to production.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:53 pm
by JocMeister
With the risk of sounding like a broken record... [:D]
The problem isn´t with the allies. The problem is a Japanese one. There has to be some kind of break on the Japanese air force. Personally I still feel limiting pilots is the best way. Short of that its kind of ridiculous how cheap planes are to produce.
If there is no incentive for the Allied player to actually do something in the air there won´t be any air war. That is no fun for either side. I´m dead sure I´m correct in my thinking. My other game seems to confirm this. I have absolutely no reason to try and do anything in the air other then CAP. I´m currently ahead with 3:1 having lost only 1500 planes. I´m sure this is going to drive my opponent mad eventually. Hopefully he will spend a crazy amount of resources on getting a fantasy air force up. Only to find nothing to fight against. Anyone here think he will enjoy that any more than I will?
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:02 pm
by paullus99
Since the Allies (particularly the US) had the means to ramp up production as much as they wanted - and had the population to support an expanded airforce - but it isn't reflected in the game mechanics (and if Japan appeared to be much stronger than they were historically, don't you think the Joint Chiefs would have scaled the USAAF & Navy appropriately?)...
But hey, its a game that caters to giving Japan the greatest possible advantages.....
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:12 pm
by JocMeister
In the real war they would have of course. [:)] But I think adding even more planes to the mix might not be the best solution. The game is already struggling to handle the concentrations of aircraft that we players constantly do. Adding more allied planes would I think be adding more "broken" to whats already broken. Better to put a break on Japanese production.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:33 pm
by paullus99
That's very true - given what we see in the endgame.....
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:52 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Agree with everything you said. But its a shame the game comes down to that. The ONLY viable strategy as I see it is to avoid air combat as much as possible. Just save planes and pilots until you can get within range of the HI and/or oil. Every lost pilot and plane before that is a waste. A rough generalization of course but I think that statement covers pretty well how an allied players mindset should be when playing a competent Japanese player that has done the proper planning for a late war game.
There are only 3 targets worth losing planes and pilots over.
-Oil
-HI/LI
-AC factories
Another rough advice would be to forget any notion of attrition the Japanese by aerial battle. Its not going to happen. Planes are DIRT cheap. 20.000 planes for 1 single ID. No question about what is easiest to achieve. In the last couple of months I have destroyed 25-30 IDs worth of troops. Do the math on how many planes that is and its very obvious trying any kind of attrition in the air is a complete waste of time.
I´m already using what I wrote above as gospel in my other game. I have a healthy pool of 200 4Es saved up together with some 500 P39/P40s in 11/42. My opponent won´t see many 4Es before I reach his oil...And I will only fight defensively in the air. Fun? No. Probably not for my opponent either. But you have to play within the limits of the game. Japan is given a fantasy air force. The best way to fight that is simply to avoid it. Fight were you are strong on the sea and ground instead.
This will be how the game is played in the future. Mark my words. Its all about numbers and nothing else. This I strongly believe is extremely bad for the game. When one of the biggest and most important aspects of the game is no longer played by one side because its so poorly balanced we are going to start losing players from both camps. I can absolutely understand Japanese players reluctance to start giving some of what is quite arguable their biggest (even only) asset. But this HAS to be balanced somehow. Its making the game boring. For BOTH sides.
As with everything players are driving things to the absolute edge. The game HAS to evolve with the players or you will end up with nothing more then extreme tactics that in turn gives birth to other extreme tactics to counter that. And in the end we will have a game that is probably not very fun to play. This would not be the first game that went down that way.
I guess what I´m trying to say is that the air war simply isn´t any fun. It should be the pillar on which this game rests. But its turning into an anchor that is dragging it down instead. It will take some time before people start realizing that but its I´m absolutely convincted that is how it will end.
I could answer each and every one of your points, but what's the point? You're convinced you're right.
I'll just ask one question: in how many AARs do we see a surprise, bolt-from-the-blue massed carrier strike from west of Sumatra, in 1943, aimed at burning down Palembang?
Players of all stripes like to play this game as a bash-a-thon. There is very little attention paid to strategic war until the last stages. If you try a bash-a-thon in the air you'll lose as the Allies under PDU ON. So why do it?
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:46 pm
by Encircled
It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.
You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:58 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Encircled
It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.
You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.
Sure LBA could defend against it. If the Japanese player expanded the AF to max and devoted 250+ fighters to CAP every day, plus the av support to keep them up. How many do?
I believe crsutton did this long ago. It's the only one I know of.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:07 pm
by Encircled
Yeah, sorry meant that the recent beta changes appear to have lessened the co-ordination for an LBA strike against your carriers (at least thats the impression I get reading the AARs).
I'd expect most Japanese players would have sufficient aircraft on the airfields of Southern Sumatra to make it tough for the allies
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:23 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Encircled
It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.
You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.
Sure LBA could defend against it. If the Japanese player expanded the AF to max and devoted 250+ fighters to CAP every day, plus the av support to keep them up. How many do?
I believe crsutton did this long ago. It's the only one I know of.
Totally agree with the Moose here. I rarely actively defend Palembang before I truly have to. Simply don't have enough aircraft or Base Forces to have a 'back water' area fully defended upon a possibility rather then a probability.
When Dan launched his brilliant assault upon Sumatra he could have taken Palembang and Singapore in DAYS had he known the weakness in the area. Since he paused it allowed me to rush reinforcements to the region, slowly build-up and hold things, and then begin a counterattack. I think there was a small Chutai of Oscars at Palembang and two regular Base Forces present there the day he landed.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:23 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Yeah, sorry meant that the recent beta changes appear to have lessened the co-ordination for an LBA strike against your carriers (at least thats the impression I get reading the AARs).
I'd expect most Japanese players would have sufficient aircraft on the airfields of Southern Sumatra to make it tough for the allies
Well, you do bring up another issue, and it's endemic among my AFB brethren. Carrier Love. It's a disease. As if carriers were these precious snowflakes that may never be risked to accomplish a strategic objective that could be a war-winner.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:26 pm
by Encircled
Agree with that
I do rather protect my carriers!
Cheers John for that, maybe its something to bear in mind then as a likely tactic
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:27 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Encircled
It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.
You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.
Sure LBA could defend against it. If the Japanese player expanded the AF to max and devoted 250+ fighters to CAP every day, plus the av support to keep them up. How many do?
I believe crsutton did this long ago. It's the only one I know of.
Totally agree with the Moose here. I rarely actively defend Palembang before I truly have to. Simply don't have enough aircraft or Base Forces to have a 'back water' area fully defended upon a possibility rather then a probability.
When Dan launched his brilliant assault upon Sumatra he could have taken Palembang and Singapore in DAYS had he known the weakness in the area. Since he paused it allowed me to rush reinforcements to the region, slowly build-up and hold things, and then begin a counterattack. I think there was a small Chutai of Oscars at Palembang and two regular Base Forces present there the day he landed.
Excuse, but didn't you two have an HR that put an iron dome over Palembang? Without that HR his invasion would have behaved very, very differently and you would have lost the war in that campaign. When you have HRs like that Japan is free to put its air force up forward on odd forays into India and Oz.
Palembang isn't a back water. It's the game. It's the enchilada. But inserting HRs to leave it naked? While also playing an uber-Japan mod? Please.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:37 pm
by John 3rd
Correct. WE did have a HR against Strat Bombing until later in the game. I have modified my stance on this subject after the discussion over the Strat Bomb HR occurred, however, there are reasons for that but most AFB don't like hearing them.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:42 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Correct. WE did have a HR against Strat Bombing until later in the game. There are reasons for that but most AFB don't like hearing them.
I'm going to stop this here as I don't want to pollute Jocke's house. Let's just say we disagree.
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:56 pm
by FeurerKrieg
ORIGINAL: Encircled
Agree with that
I do rather protect my carriers!
Cheers John for that, maybe its something to bear in mind then as a likely tactic
Note to self ---- defend Palembang early. [:D]
RE: Battle for Okinawa!
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:11 am
by JocMeister
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I could answer each and every one of your points, but what's the point? You're convinced you're right.
I'll just ask one question: in how many AARs do we see a surprise, bolt-from-the-blue massed carrier strike from west of Sumatra, in 1943, aimed at burning down Palembang?
Players of all stripes like to play this game as a bash-a-thon. There is very little attention paid to strategic war until the last stages. If you try a bash-a-thon in the air you'll lose as the Allies under PDU ON. So why do it?
Hmm, I think I may have been unclear in my post as you seem to disagree with me? What you are saying is almost exactly what I´m trying to say.
A CV strike on PB would absolutely fit my thinking. If you are trading planes and pilots for oil/HI/LI/factories you are doing it right. But if you are trading planes for planes you are doing it wrong. This is of course a very rough generalization but its the rough idea I´m applying to my second game.
Am I convinced I´m right? Yes of course otherwise I wouldn´t try it. If you disagree with it I would love to hear it. You know I have always valued you input and advice. [:)]