Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: koniu

In two days of battles (Lautem and Kopang) i've sunk 6 or 7 modern enemy cruisers, at least 10/15 Fletchers, 5 CVEs (if i'm not mistaken) and put out of action a modern BB (Washington)

It is game. But i try imagine how impact it will have for politicians and public opinion in US if that battle happen in real world. I will say that it will at best end with tornado in Pacific HQ. Bye bye Mr Nimitz.

If i was a politician(president or someone with power) in US i such situation, not publicly but probably quietly i will start thinking about peace offer to Japan. Something that will make happy both sides. Maybe it is strategilcy allied victory but if i was worker, farmer or taxi driver in US i will only see newspaper headlines.
"30 ships lost in in Indian Ocean. 20000 our brave boys die. When that madness will end" (probably more censorship here needed)

Is not this was major goal for Japan in that time. Make allies loses so big that they decide that fighting for China, Philippines is and rest of region is not worth of those huge loses. In that single battle allies probably would lose something like 10-20000 sailors and soldiers and pilots (10-20% of total KIA loses in real war).

But I am not US citizen so what i can know. And this is game.

To be honest I think a cruiser should worth more VPs than 40... how many sailors do die if a CA or CL gets sunk? 40 VPs is like 20 4Es.. I think lives are not well balanced in a VPs optic...but I know the devs have thought a lot about that so I trust them that the system is actually more balanced than what it seems to me

And that's the butcher's bill so far...

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
to be honest I think a cruiser should worth more VPs than 40... how many sailors do die if a CA or CL gets sunk? 40 VPs is like 20 4Es.. I think lives are not well balanced in a VPs optic...but I know the devs have thought a lot about that so I trust them that the system is actually more balanced than what it seems to me

Cleveland class CL have ~1200 sailors and officers
Baltimore class CA have ~1150 sailors and officers
Smaller cruisers have ~800-900 sailors and officers
Fletcher class DD have ~330 sailors and officers

They are for sure worth more that 20 Liberators.

Jap total air losses so far

Total allied losses so far

ORIGINAL: koniu

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
to be honest I think a cruiser should worth more VPs than 40... how many sailors do die if a CA or CL gets sunk? 40 VPs is like 20 4Es.. I think lives are not well balanced in a VPs optic...but I know the devs have thought a lot about that so I trust them that the system is actually more balanced than what it seems to me

Cleveland class CL have ~1200 sailors and officers
Baltimore class CA have ~1150 sailors and officers
Smaller cruisers have ~800-900 sailors and officers
Fletcher class DD have ~330 sailors and officers

They are for sure worth more that 20 Liberators.

exactly what I meant Koniu!

There always has been a discrepancy between VP points assigned to aircraft as compared to ships. IMHO the VP for ships should at least be doubled, but there always is the possibility of a well hidden cause for them being so low in comparision.

Sorry for the intrusion, but could someone kindly tell me when the monsoon season begans and ends?  I cannot find it in the manual.

An few observations about casualties and US public opinion during the pacific war.
 
1.  There, in fact, was quite a buzz about the high casualities in the island hopping strategy (primarily naval/Marine inspired) vs. the lower casualty operations conducted by (primarily the Army) along the New Guinea-Phillipines axis.  Most of this was inter service rivalry supported by the politicans backing Nimitz or MacArthur.  But, it was played out in the press to a marked degree.  Some called for an end to the extremely bloody fighting associated with island hopping beginning with Siapan and on thru Okinawa.  However, none of it arose to a serious call for peace talks as the Allies carried forward with an unbroken string of victories moving ever closer to the Home Islands.  Had the US, in particular, lost some battles as badly as have occurred in this game.....well, maybe the cry for talks would have taken a more serious turn.
 
2.  During WW2 news reaching the home front was heavily censored by today's standards.  While the US public was provided much more open access to news than say that reaching the ears of Japanese citizens, it was nothing at all like that which emerged during Vietnam.  There were newsreels (highly controlled) shown in movies and whatnot, but not play by play TV coverage appearing nightly as occurred during Vietnam and later.  Personally, bringing the war visually right into home and hearth has had a profound effect on the government's ability to (partially) control home morale.
 
3.  From a game point of view, I assume that the developers set the VCs based in part on the effect massive losses would have had on public morale, but in a game this large and long, that might not have been a factor.  But, that is why I do play with VCs in mind.  I don't know, but had the landing at a couple of island "hops" (say Saipan and Tarawa) failed with extreme loss of life, I am not certain that a negotiated peace might not have occurred.  I suppose it would have been possible. 
       

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

There always has been a discrepancy between VP points assigned to aircraft as compared to ships. IMHO the VP for ships should at least be doubled, but there always is the possibility of a well hidden cause for them being so low in comparision.

I think they're about right for CVs. Which is to say, about triple the durability of the ship (and durability is used for the other VPs)?

If I had to guess, I'd say the devs went with VP value = durability (except for CVs) because it was the simplest way to have a standard system for VPs. Maybe one of them can chime in.

Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?

Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.

A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.

ORIGINAL: obvert

Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?

Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.

A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.

Well, I do think CVs are about right as they are now, at 300ish for the big fleet CVs. That's about on the level of losing Port Moresby, or something. Seems about right for a measure of "who's winning the war?" The others... the only one that really stands out as too low are the CAs at 40ish. DDs and subs all seem fine.

If anything, the VPs for some of the merchants/transports seems too high.


@GreyJoy: keep fighting! No thread hijacking to see here, move along...

I think the main point is that players, both Japanese and allies tend to play in a ruthless "soviet style" no regard for losses if the strategic gain is worth it type of way. As the Allies you lose 3 CVs and several BBs/CAs and 10s of DD in a daring operation that allows you to land on malaysia in mid 43, great for you ! it was strategically worth, while IRL such a bold but extremely risky operation would never have been approved as it risked leading to the deaths of 30/40 000 sailors and soldiers in a day or two !

It is not a criticism,it is how the game is modelled.

The difference in ship sunk is really impressive!
You've done far better than Japan in RL, your enemy is still far away from HI and his naval losses are huge.
This last battle is a clear victory for you with all those CVE sunk and his advance stopped again !
You should be really satisfied!
even if, of course, is a Pyrric victory 'cause you can't replace your losses. but all we know that in '44 Japan can only win this kind of victories. Japan could also easily loose badly at this point!!
I believe that if your opponent is pushing towards DEI and Philippines instead than HI is very good for you, you have banked resources enough to to make the industry run and so you can allow to loose territory in that direction.
It would be worse if he would open a new front in Kuriles or Mariannes to menace directly HI but it doesn't seem the case now.
Keep on like this and good luck [:)]

I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.

Desperate times call for a Divine Wind.

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.

Very true. He might need to park his fleet for a while and focus on harassment with his AF using all the dirty tricks in the book (low/high, kamis, ablative escorts, extra small packets that can sneak in, hoping planes on a bypassed supplyless base from which they can only fly once, etc....)

Yes guys you're absolutely right! To win the war you need to act as you said!! Probably is the last time GJ can do like this with the few ships left...and maybe he couldn't afford also these losses [:(]
But sometimes you need to get some satisfactions, you cannot always hide like a rabbit in the hole. And this kind of great battles gives you very strong emotions, it's pure adrenaline. This is a game, you also have to get some fun. For late Japan players I suppose is difficult to not get depressed [;)]
So GJ.. go on like this with this beatiful AAR and save your KB for the last stand!!![:)]
ciao

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.

Very true. He might need to park his fleet for a while and focus on harassment with his AF using all the dirty tricks in the book (low/high, kamis, ablative escorts, extra small packets that can sneak in, hoping planes on a bypassed supplyless base from which they can only fly once, etc....)

Hhhmmmmmmmm.

Why are all of these "dirty." When are escorts ablative?

All of these are simply tactics, not that tricky, and this term of ablative escorts is almost obsolete now with the newer betas as you can't count on your 200 escorts flying, especially if they truly are "ablative" (i.e. low quality pilots). As Japan late though you might only have low quality pilots, so are these still ablative if that's all you have? In the newer betas though they will have even less chance to fly with your bombers if they are not of the highest quality.

I get what you're saying but sometimes these terms rankle me as I think they're over-used and kind of make this stuff seem like it's not quite fair, or that these really are "dirty tricks" rather than simply valid tactics. Which all of those you list are, in fact.

Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.