Matrix Games Forums

[font="Verdana"]27th March 1945[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

Erik uploaded the turn file last night to the wrong folder. So we only got one turn done yesterday. Been looking at the Command modern air/naval combat a lot lately. That looks solid with loads of scenarios and support! Anyone tried it?

------------------------
Destination Okinawa
------------------------
I moved my fleet to just 1 hex SW of Naha. First small TF will go into Naha tomorrow under heavy LBA CAP. I don´t think Erik will intervene. The window for that has passed. I have 350 fighters on CAP now. 40 something subs and loads of SCTFs protecting from Bombardments. Even if he tried he would most likely have spent all OPS points before reaching Naha.

Looks like Erik indeed will shift from Formosa to Kyushu. Lots of traffic going towards Formosa. If he abandons it I get that one for free too. Fingers crossed. [:)] Half the air force and most of the heavy ships have shifted over to Kyushu. Patience...

------------------------
China
------------------------
Mostly strat bombing going on now. Troops are still moving East. Looks like Erik has started shifting out from Nanning. So basically my flanking move was successful. Superstacking might be a viable strategy when there is no room to maneuver. When there is you can simply move around. [:)]

------------------------
LUZON!
------------------------
Aparri finally reaches level 9.

------------------------
Sumatra
------------------------
Armor lands at Oosthaven. Slowly but surely we are getting there.


Let me know if there is any screen you want to see. I usually try to attach one with every update but when nothing important have happened I tend to skip it...

Yep, the map with Aparri in China, its on the same page as the Swedish map with London


[:'(]

Whooops! [:D]

[font="Verdana"]Strategic Bombing[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

I´m starting to run out of targets in China. I´ve pretty soon taken care of all those smaller industry targets. After that I have to take care of the big targets that still has a small amount of working industry left. Since Erik hasn´t moved in any NFs I have been able to do this completely undisturbed. I´m losing around 1-2 B29s per raid to OPS/Flak and I have been able to keep up a high frequency of attacks. Usually I can fly for two night straight and then rest for 4-6 days.

What I have to decide on soon is what to do next. I´ve ruled out restarting the Marianas campaign. Losses are simply too high. Having Aparri go to level 9 opens up targets on Kyushu. But there arn´t much there to blow up actually.

I also have the option to rebase the B29s to Okinawa in about two months when more bases are secured and built up. It will get crowded there though. And from my testing it seems pretty much impossible to hit the aircraft factories with night bombing. These are the targets I really want. Its the only way I can ever get started on that illusive daylight campaign...For that to happen I need to land on the HI proper...Something I will start to really look into in the coming weeks. I actually have some of the Formosa troops prepping for a landing on Kyushu.

ORIGINAL: 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. [:)]

I was reacting to this. It seems to contradict what else you are saying.

"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."

IOW, you say in one place you are focusing on using your air forces in a strategic role, but then say this is no "fun" and a detriment to the long-term health of the game. And further that the game engine needs to be changed to return the fun tot he air war.

I'm glad you seem to have realized you can't win a war of sweeps in a PDU ON game. And you say you realize you need to wage economic war to stop the Japanese air force at its base. But then you also call for really massive changes to the game's core balance assumptions. Color me confused.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

IOW, you say in one place you are focusing on using your air forces in a strategic role, but then say this is no "fun" and a detriment to the long-term health of the game. And further that the game engine needs to be changed to return the fun tot he air war.

I'm glad you seem to have realized you can't win a war of sweeps in a PDU ON game. And you say you realize you need to wage economic war to stop the Japanese air force at its base. But then you also call for really massive changes to the game's core balance assumptions. Color me confused.

No, I´m not asking for a massive change of the engine or core balance. I´m asking for some breaks to be applied to the Japanese air force. If the allied player have absolutely no incitement to do anything but stay away (from anything that isn´t oil/HI/LI/Factories) I´m saying its going to get pretty boring for BOTH sides.

The Moose pretty much hits the central point of all this debate.

You are playing PDU ON. By this you yielded the qualitative superiority in airframes which enabled the Allies to enact a high level of attrition to the Japanese air with acceptable loss ratios.


And then you personally hit the other central point:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
But if you are trading planes for planes you are doing it wrong.

EXACTLY! [:)]
Fighting the air war to fight the air war will never win you the war. It does not matter whether it´s PDU ON or OFF. Aircraft have to deliver ordnance on target which needs to serve an overall goal. Shooting down enemy planes is a secondary achievement strategically. And on a tactical scale, e.g. to achieve air superiority over a landing area, this is easily within capabilities of the Allied air forces.

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

IOW, you say in one place you are focusing on using your air forces in a strategic role, but then say this is no "fun" and a detriment to the long-term health of the game. And further that the game engine needs to be changed to return the fun tot he air war.

I'm glad you seem to have realized you can't win a war of sweeps in a PDU ON game. And you say you realize you need to wage economic war to stop the Japanese air force at its base. But then you also call for really massive changes to the game's core balance assumptions. Color me confused.

No, I´m not asking for a massive change of the engine or core balance. I´m asking for some breaks to be applied to the Japanese air force. If the allied player have absolutely no incitement to do anything but stay away (from anything that isn´t oil/HI/LI/Factories) I´m saying its going to get pretty boring for BOTH sides.

Lobaron beat me to it while I was away doing my AAR. I think you mean "brakes" to the Japanese air force. They exist in PDU OFF. If he has to keep Nate squadrons, for example, into 1945 it doesn't matter how many Georges he can build after uber-R & D spending and factory expansion. He can build them, but they'll sit in the pools.

Lobaron's other point is also spot on. The Allies can achieve local air superiority when they need it for an op. Certainly in 1944-45 they can. And that's all you need to move the peanut forward toward the HI. Bashing for bashing's sake is fruitless. Air supports Ground. Naval supports Ground. Taking territory and standing on it wins the game.

Playing with PDU "ON" gives Japan an advantage.
Playing with Realistic R&D "OFF" gives Japan another advantage.
The recent changes in the beta patches which allows unlimited aircraft on a AF9 means CAP can be in the 100s.

I have two PBEM games going, but I will modify my next game to have the Americans get some 75 plane FG vs them coming in as 3x25. How many, I haven't thought through enough yet and this will not happen for a few more years.

Since there are so few games with AARs that show players using PDU "OFF," it is hard to treat this whole subject from a realistic perspective.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The Moose pretty much hits the central point of all this debate.


Fighting the air war to fight the air war will never win you the war. It does not matter whether it´s PDU ON or OFF. Aircraft have to deliver ordnance on target which needs to serve an overall goal. Shooting down enemy planes is a secondary achievement strategically. And on a tactical scale, e.g. to achieve air superiority over a landing area, this is easily within capabilities of the Allied air forces.

Well said, worth to repeat once more.

It seems we are actually in agreement so I don´t really understand what we are arguing about.

The only thing I´m questioning is the "fun factor" of it. When the only thing for one side to do is to "do nothing" fun kind of goes out the window. That is why I think there has to be an incitement to act. If I knew I could at least cause some damage to the Japanese air force I would of course try. Now I know its absolutely pointless to even begin to try so I do nothing. The question in my mind is whether that is much fun for either side. Or good for the game.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Playing with PDU "ON" gives Japan an advantage.
Playing with Realistic R&D "OFF" gives Japan another advantage.
The recent changes in the beta patches which allows unlimited aircraft on a AF9 means CAP can be in the 100s.

I have two PBEM games going, but I will modify my next game to have the Americans get some 75 plane FG vs them coming in as 3x25. How many, I haven't thought through enough yet and this will not happen for a few more years.

Since there are so few games with AARs that show players using PDU "OFF," it is hard to treat this whole subject from a realistic perspective.

Correct assessment. I never understood why most people seem to play with PDU "on" and Realistic R&D "off" instead of using the standard game options (for which the game was designed). Since the release of the AE, everybody seems to assume that the poor Japanese player needs some help to make him competitive.

Perhaps someone needs to mod a version of Scenario 1/2 that would make PDU off a viable choice for the Japanese player by slightly improving the air group upgrade paths. Something that's in between PDU off's "50% Nates" and PDU on's "75% Franks with a few Tojos and Oscars sprinkled in for sacrificial purposes".

I count myself lucky that I was able to get a Realistic R&D Off game [;)] for my first serious shot. Next time I'll play with it On, as my perception is that Realistic R&D is the norm around here.

For the record Jocke, I think achieving local air superiority for your offensive ops can qualify as 'fun'.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Playing with PDU "ON" gives Japan an advantage.
Playing with Realistic R&D "OFF" gives Japan another advantage.
The recent changes in the beta patches which allows unlimited aircraft on a AF9 means CAP can be in the 100s.

I have two PBEM games going, but I will modify my next game to have the Americans get some 75 plane FG vs them coming in as 3x25. How many, I haven't thought through enough yet and this will not happen for a few more years.

Since there are so few games with AARs that show players using PDU "OFF," it is hard to treat this whole subject from a realistic perspective.

No such change. AF has always meant an unlimited number of aircraft. What did change was that Air Support needed is no longer capped at 250. Now it stays at 1 to 1 so that, say, 1,200 aircraft requires 1,200 Air Support. Also, the Air Support at size 8 or size 9 airfields counts as double. This helps both sides but is seen as helping the IJ more as they have much less Air Support troops available.

[font="Verdana"]28th March 1945[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

Very little to report.

------------------------
Destination Okinawa
------------------------
As predicted the first shuttle TF goes in opposed. It still looks like KB is lingering outside Shanghai. Oddly I have a really hard time getting a good fix on the KB. Despite 36 Cats flying from Naha I can´t solid intel.

------------------------
China
------------------------
Movement continue unopposed. Erik put some 3 units in the path of the Chinese. Its 22.000 AV. All in supply after a couple of days of airdrop. I feel reasonably confident I can deal with whatever he puts in the way. [:D]

Thats it. Incredible boring right now.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I count myself lucky that I was able to get a Realistic R&D Off game [;)] for my first serious shot.

And maybe wily moose hereabouts think that Realistic OFF is a supply-consumption bear-trap waiting to be stepped in . . . [8D]

As a REAL newbie still, it seems to me that the Japanese economy has three weak points where things can fail.

Oil/Fuel/HI - all interrelated. You attack oil, to limit fuel and limit fuel to get limit HI points which are used for (just about) everything.

Pilots - at least a potential weakness. If you cannot limit the airframes, then limiting the quality of pilots through attrition is one way to hold the air battle in check. Unfortunately I don't see this being viable in most situations

Supply - Whilst sorta kinda related to HI above, supply is finite in all the games for the Japanese. (much less so as a global concept for the Allies). Forcing supply consumption to be above the sustainable rate will eventually lead to a collapse.

Its seems to me that if you put one or more of these into crisis, the whole war can come crashing down around your foes ears.

PDU On - Realistic R&D On is a fun game to me (as a self-avowed JFB). Half the fun for me is trying to decide how to make a viable airforce, what the best R&D choices are, how much of each airframe is ideal, etc. It is pretty tough to stop a determined 4E attack from getting through no matter how much you put on CAP. Maybe the loss rates are not sustainable but I don't know if I've seen any 300 plane 4E raids being completely blocked. Plus it takes a lot of supplies to repair the damage from one raid. If I had to play with 50% Nates (ie PDU off) I wouldn't even bother.

I find the part where you say it would be fun to damage the Japanese players air force the issue. Why do you want to damage their air force? All that should matter is halting production and taking territory. These are achievable with PDU On by the allies, and still gives the Japan player the feeling that they aren't totally helpless in the late war.

Clearly, in your game, you have shown that Japan can't hold everything, so it seems like you are saying not only do you want to be able to conquer the DEI, China, Burma, PI, and Okinawa by early 45, you want to be able to make sure the Japanese have no viable air force to fight back with. I'd like to feel that if I do a good job of efficient moving oil, fuel, resources - and efficiently manage my pilots - and efficiently managing my defenses, that I could have some chance of holding onto the home islands into early 1946, otherwise, not much reason to play. Even with some early losses (I've only read the first couple pages from your early war stage), you seem to have done better than historical given you are in control of Okinawa before June 1945.

Not saying you are right or wrong - just my thoughts. Hope you don't mind!

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The Moose pretty much hits the central point of all this debate.


Fighting the air war to fight the air war will never win you the war. It does not matter whether it´s PDU ON or OFF. Aircraft have to deliver ordnance on target which needs to serve an overall goal. Shooting down enemy planes is a secondary achievement strategically. And on a tactical scale, e.g. to achieve air superiority over a landing area, this is easily within capabilities of the Allied air forces.

Well said, worth to repeat once more.

Well said... altough it was already said in other words in this book: The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat [;)]

Basically the work says it is not good to hunt enemy in the air - where he is least vulnerable and you will be trading roughly 1:1 in airframes without some powerful force multipliers. Finding the weak spot and hitting there is what counts.
For Japan I suppose it is logistics - without supplies they could not fly. The problem is less clear on Japanese Home Islands, but solutions could be various...