The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


Japan, even in a scenario 2 environement (and in RA, I think, it's the same) is a paper tiger. Strong, yes, but its strength has no depth. Once you start to lose some warships and your best navy pilots, it's a downhill. And it takes just few unlucky battles to cripple your navy or your pre-war pilots pool.
As CrSutton always says, if the allies do not do stupid things in 1942 and keep their CVs alive, they cannot lose. Simply cannot.
Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.
I strongly suggest to any allied player to play, at least once, with Japan... you'll know its weaknesses and understand how tough is life on the other side of the hill [;)]

+1

It really changes perspective to see the other side. There is never enough to go around, and once the Allied player learns this it becomes more fun because it is about deception, intrigue, misdirection and subtlety rather than simply a hammer.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.

Well, that was kind of my point. Perhaps many Japanese players simply go too far ending up with too much land to cover. I can´t remember what game it was but the Japanese lost their CVs kind of early and switched to defensive early. This according to the allied player caused him a massive amount of problems having to go on the offensive early and hitting a well prepared defense instead of a overextended empire with no prepared defenses at all.

But of course Japan is going to lose. There is no denying that.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.

Well, that was kind of my point. Perhaps many Japanese players simply go too far ending up with too much land to cover. I can´t remember what game it was but the Japanese lost their CVs kind of early and switched to defensive early. This according to the allied player caused him a massive amount of problems having to go on the offensive early and hitting a well prepared defense instead of a overextended empire with no prepared defenses at all.

But of course Japan is going to lose. There is no denying that.

I think what GJ is saying though too is that even with all of the CVs, even just going to historical, even if everything goes to plans and battles are won early, there is too much land to cover as Japan to have a strong defense everywhere. Yo only know how thin the lines are when you play the dark side into at least 43. There just aren't enough troops to cover everything, not enough AA to protect the vitals, not enough ships to sustain inevitable losses.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.

Well, that was kind of my point. Perhaps many Japanese players simply go too far ending up with too much land to cover. I can´t remember what game it was but the Japanese lost their CVs kind of early and switched to defensive early. This according to the allied player caused him a massive amount of problems having to go on the offensive early and hitting a well prepared defense instead of a overextended empire with no prepared defenses at all.

But of course Japan is going to lose. There is no denying that.

I think what GJ is saying though too is that even with all of the CVs, even just going to historical, even if everything goes to plans and battles are won early, there is too much land to cover as Japan to have a strong defense everywhere. Yo only know how thin the lines are when you play the dark side into at least 43. There just aren't enough troops to cover everything, not enough AA to protect the vitals, not enough ships to sustain inevitable losses.

Exactly Eric. Fragile...we're paper tigers... I can have 50,000 men well dug in behind 6 forts at a certain base... but you can be sure that there are many other bases close-by that are empty or maybe defended just by a Naval guard unit... you simply need to bomb me to oblivion with your 4Es, sweep my ports with Fletchers Task Forces, sweep my skies with P-47s and avoid the best defended base, landing on the light defended one. LRCAP your amphib TFs and see my bombers get impaled on it. And keep on advancing bypassing my strongholds (just as they did in RL). You don't even need CVs to do that!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yes, but how many of those are japanese OPS losses?

A lot. But the biggest component of the difference is flak losses.

The 1:1 ratio I was talking about was meant as 1:1 air vs air ratio.

I'll take a loss wherever I can get one. [:)] Same VPs.

I´m not sure but I don´t think the Japanese have any planes considered "heavy" but only the allied 4Es get this designation?

I wish the manual were more clear. A Mavis isn't a heavy bomber OR a fighter. A Betty isn't a fighter, but a medium-bomber. The manual only describes two buckets.

I do agree with you on what you say about VPs. But I´m just not so sure a Japanese player considers this a stopping block or hindrance to throw everything he has against the allied air force. Thats what I meant about getting a 1:1 VP ratio for knocking out the allied air force. Some Japanese input on this would be interesting! [:)]

True. And I don't question a Japanese player going all out in 1942. But if a duo is playing for VPs the Japanese player would recognize it's a risk. And more importantly it's not the only option open to him if he considers the whole game span. If not playing for VPs it's a whole different dynamic.

I think its a shame that almost nobody plays SCEN 1 PDU OFF. I think it might bring a more balanced and fun experience for both players. Especially 41-43. I certainly understand why Japanese players shun it. If I could choose between having unlimited resources or not. Of course I would go for the option of having them. But if I was a japanese player I would also probably rather face 2000 Wildkittens than 2000 Hellcats?

Yesterday I was poking around in the depths of the forum archives and doing a little wool-gathering. Looking at 2010 posts I see--sadly--hundreds of screen names of departed players. Some of them were titans in their day. Treespider. Nik, pauk, Mynok. Many others. And skimming scores of posts I see a not-so-subtle change in the culture of the game from those days. Perhaps the early days near first-ship attracted more mature, thoughtful wargamers than the newbies now, or maybe I'm just an old grump. But I don't see the devs speaking to Japanese Oz invasions, or India campaigns. Or the old timers much either. I see more respect for GG's core design decisions, especially on Japan fighting a defensive war after the first six months, and the nobility of doing that while trying to rope in the beast of economy management and optimization. I DON'T see a lot of posts saying "Japan can't win." I think that notion was foreign to GG when he laid down the matrix, and to the AE team. I DO see "Japan can't win the war" and I think this is what's been corrupted since. "Japan can win the game" has fallen by the wayside in the forum culture. The spate of HR debates is one offshoot. The neutering of "non-historical" items in an abstract game has been another. And a third has been the rise of mods like RA, which seek to make the war-winning and not the game-winning paramount.

Are mods like RA good for the sustainability of AE? Maybe. I don't see a lot of newbie posters having the depth of understanding, and the gaming maturity seen in some of those old, departed titans and the devs themselves, to want to step up and play Japan as it was designed by GG to be played. Maybe mods that give Japan a chance to win the war are the only way over the even-longer term to get people to play that side.

I might not deserve a vote on this because I admittedly can't play Japan. Just can't do it in my head. Can't root for them to sink "my" navy, given what I think of their wartime culture and government. I've tried to play them in AI and I've never gotten beyond six months, holding my nose the whole time. So I need people who can do that to keep stepping up and taking the opposing side if I want to keep playing this amazing game. But if my only choice becomes playing an RA-type mod, or worse its grandson, I'll probably have to stop playing. If I want a Hulk smash! game I have lots of better options already on my HD or at Steam, with modern graphics and sound and UIs that don't make me blind and weeping.

I think its that "HULK SMASH" mentality. The Japanese side want lots and lots of stuff because they think they must have them to stay competitive. I think in 90% of the cases these extra toys only leads to overextension and a premature ending of the game. There are a few SCEN 1 games running where the Japanese player have done very well. So the SCEN 2 option isn´t a requirement for a successful Japanese campaign.

Robert Heinlein wrote a great juvenile novel called "Tunnel in the Sky" where high school seniors went off to wild planets through a Stargate-type thing as a final exam for a survival course. They could take any and all equipment they chose. The hero, a pretty smart kid (hey, it's Heinlein) decides to take only a very fine knife. His theory is if he has only a knife he'll be very, very careful about what he gets himself into. And it works. In the first day after a disaster closes the gate he finds a kid with the very latest whiz-bang energy gun. Dead. And the person who killed him--not with an energy gun--left it behind as it only would slow them down.

Japanese players in Scen 1 with PDU off have to be a lot more careful about their assets than RA-mod players. They can still win the game--our hero survives years with his knife--but they have to be smart about it. The Hulk would have been eaten by stobor. (Read the book. [:)])

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Dan, this AAR is growing in posts count so fast that I couldn't even understand what happened that upset you so much. You're defenetly winning our private match[;)]

However I've faced your very same problem against Rader... during the battle of Karachi my pools were completely empty...and I mean completely. I had to abandon the airfields to their destiny. But I had enough AA there to prevent his Helens from doing anything without suffering crushing losses... and that buyed me time...time for the forts to go up...so, i'd say, you still have chances here. Don't give up.

Anyway it seems to me that you got a bit tired with the game/forum etc... I know how it feels. You probably devoted too many energies to the game/AAR and now feel a bit "emptied". Relax a bit. Take a break...and then see how you feel about the game in general. Been there too[:)]

And in the Betas now flak works much better than it used to! My AAR shows that, both for land-based and for ship-based flak.

[Canoerebel]

Here's an email I just sent to NYGiants, who asked to check my files and fighter pools:

Michael,

I was on the road yesterday, visiting my dad in a hospital in Asheville, NC. Long day, so I'm trying to catch my breath and catch up at work.

I did the math a few minutes ago - In the game to date (1/1/43), I have received a total of 66 P-38G. That consists of 33 lost in battle (25 a-2-a and 8 ops), 25 on map (8 FG/36 FS has all 25), plus 8 in the pools.

So, if the Allies are to receive 60 per month, as I think you were saying in your posts, I've only received 1/3rd that amount. But if the total is supposed to be 20 per month, then I've received the right amount. In that case, the total is not sufficient (IMO) to permit the Allies to fight anything but a defensive war in 1942; certainly I have put myself in a position where the meager Allied pools do not permit a move as bold as what I did. But if I had another 120 P-38s, all bets are off. In two days of combat invovling roughly 450 Tojos, I lost a total of two P-38s (both of those were to ops, none in a-2-a).

I haven't looked at the P-39 totals. Too many aircraft involved, but I can only say that i haven't lost one in months and yet my pool is nearly dry. So something doesn't seem quite right, though that may be a figment of my imagination.

Take care,

Dan

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Here's an email I just sent to NYGiants, who asked to check my files and fighter pools:

Michael,

I was on the road yesterday, visiting my dad in a hospital in Asheville, NC. Long day, so I'm trying to catch my breath and catch up at work.

I did the math a few minutes ago - In the game to date (1/1/43), I have received a total of 66 P-38G. That consists of 33 lost in battle (25 a-2-a and 8 ops), 25 on map (8 FG/36 FS has all 25), plus 8 in the pools.

So, if the Allies are to receive 60 per month, as I think you were saying in your posts, I've only received 1/3rd that amount. But if the total is supposed to be 20 per month, then I've received the right amount. In that case, the total is not sufficient (IMO) to permit the Allies to fight anything but a defensive war in 1942; certainly I have put myself in a position where the meager Allied pools do not permit a move as bold as what I did. But if I had another 120 P-38s, all bets are off. In two days of combat invovling roughly 450 Tojos, I lost a total of two P-38s (both of those were to ops, none in a-2-a).

I haven't looked at the P-39 totals. Too many aircraft involved, but I can only say that i haven't lost one in months and yet my pool is nearly dry. So something doesn't seem quite right, though that may be a figment of my imagination.

Take care,

Dan

Dan,

Hope your Dad is continuing to recover. Good on him for not throwing in the towel! [:)]

The P-38 - I have no idea about the mod or your particular version # of it. But keep in mind that on the defensive the P-38 has a high service rating that makes it vulnerable to being worn down in sustained combat, leaving many on the ground.

The P-39 situation sounds messed up and needs to be ferreted out.

[Canoerebel]

Here's a note (that I've modified and expanded upon) that I sent to a member of the community that dropped me a nice PM note:

A very gracious note, which is much appreciated. This is one of two nice notes I received from the forum community.

I am very disappointed in the community as a whole. I can't believe all the members who are incorrectly assuming that I terminated the game (I made it clear to John that this was temporary, though it might become permanent). Given my personal situation, you'd think that folks would understand this, but instead they jump all over it to say "I told you so!" Moreover, they somehow think John has won this game. Laughable, since no matter what happens in Sumatra the Allies are in fantastic position (not only from a combat unit standpoint, but the work done to establish the infrastructure has been vast). Finally, I've had people accusing me of cheating - using TFs to soak off, etc., which isn't true. Just crazy behavior by people with no sense of decorum and propriety or decency. I thought I'd been a member long enough, with a good enough standing, to merit perhaps a bit of understanding, but this group suffers from a massive unawareness (I think you referred to it as tone deafness).

Oops, sorry for going into this so much. But your comments mean alot - a great deal.

Dan

[PaxMondo]

We're all hoping it is temporary!!!

[&o][&o][&o]

[catwhoorg]

That's for sure.

I think this is a fascinating position to watch unfold.

[Canoerebel]

To be honest, I think there's a decent chance I don't return to the game. But I can't think clearly right now - too much going on - and need the time to regain some normalcy, which may not happen for a few weeks.

[Miller]

Hi Dan. You are in a much better position now than you were at the same stage in our game a few years ago and you still came back to win that one. Even if (and its a big if) he prevails in this campaign what have you lost? A few easily replaced transports and LCU's that can be rebuilt. Keep up the good work.

[Canoerebel]

I agree. That's one reason I don't understand all this "you lost! we assume you're throwing in the towel" sentiment.

In my game vs. Q-Ball, the Allied airforce in India was able to beat an all-out air assault by the Japanese for months. The P-38s were the key in that battle, and I was under the impression in planning this venture that I'd be in roughly the same position. But, for whatever reason, I seem to have far, far less P-38s. If I get them, the Allies will win the air battle (or lose it but inflict such devastating losses on Japan that's it's tantamount to the same thing). But even if the Allies ultimately lose in Sumatra, big deal! We're fighting in what should be Japanese territory, the Allies have exacted a tremendous toll on the Japanese infantry (which will only get worse), the Allies can afford to lose everything committed (not that I want to), and the Allies have laid out the infrastructure (units, supply, etc.) to prosecute the war going forward.

[GreyJoy]

Dan, a break from the game (and the forum) is needed some now and then. I know that. I've done that. This game is so consuming that can wear you out sometimes.

I agree that you're in a great position and I also agree that, no matter what, your situation in Sumatra/Burma has already achieved strategically a plain victory in the long run.

About the P-38s....don't know to be honest. In my game against Mr.Kane (scen 2 DBB-C) I can only equip 3 groups of 25 P-38s throughout the whole map in dec 42... and use them once a week...not more...and not in sustained and prolongued air campaign... but I never did the math to be honest

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I agree. That's one reason I don't understand all this "you lost! we assume you're throwing in the towel" sentiment.

In my game vs. Q-Ball, the Allied airforce in India was able to beat an all-out air assault by the Japanese for months. The P-38s were the key in that battle, and I was under the impression in planning this venture that I'd be in roughly the same position. But, for whatever reason, I seem to have far, far less P-38s. If I get them, the Allies will win the air battle (or lose it but inflict such devastating losses on Japan that's it's tantamount to the same thing). But even if the Allies ultimately lose in Sumatra, big deal! We're fighting in what should be Japanese territory, the Allies have exacted a tremendous toll on the Japanese infantry (which will only get worse), the Allies can afford to lose everything committed (not that I want to), and the Allies have laid out the infrastructure (units, supply, etc.) to prosecute the war going forward.

Hi Dan,

Sorry if you felt that my previous 'soaking off TFs' comments rankled. You've referenced them three or four times now as a source for your discontent, so I assume that those were my comments you've repeately referenced. I apologize for that if you've derived displeasure from my questions-but they were legitimate questions, IMO.

I like the strategic long-term view you've elaborated upon in your second paragraph. It suggests you're taking the long view-that's good. As for the short term, having some additional P-38s won't significantly change the pending air war over Sumatra. That's IMHO, YMMV. The surfeit of Japanese fighter strength unleashed here will sweep (literally and figuratively) them aside in no time.

I see you've edited out the sentence about all the Japanese fanbois 'by the short hairs' in your edited repost. I understand where you're coming from and your frustration. I hope that, when you return to the game and the forum in the future, you are at peace. I'll take a few months away from this thread too, on the chance that my comments and input is causing you discomfort.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Dan, a break from the game (and the forum) is needed some now and then. I know that. I've done that. This game is so consuming that can wear you out sometimes.

+1

I have also needed multiple breaks from the game. But after some days away it just draws you back!

I really hope you will continue the game. It would be a shame to see you let it go after everything you accomplished. [:)]

[Canoerebel]

Sometime ago, I had a PM from a forumite inquiring if I was soaking off. Right on top of that PM came Chickenboy's posts in my AAR. Putting the two together - especially from the tone - was easy.

I was not, did not and have never used soaking off missions. I think my reputation is such that my word alone would be enough, but apparently not, which really bothered me. The more I thought about it, the angrier I got.

I will be glad to make my files available so that anybody can check and see what TFs were out there and how I handled things, though I can't imagine anyone would want to go to that much trouble. But if you do, you'll see that I've always had lots of traffic between Sabang and Ceylon (duh!) and that all the TFs that were there were legit - supply and reinforcements inbound, empties and cripples outbound, etc. When John sprung his carriers forward, I did my best to get everything out of harm's way and largely succeeded.

I hope you can understand that one who hasn't done something doesn't like being repeatedly accused of doing it.

But another thing that rankled is that it was John taking maximum advantage of the game mechanics to work a nonhistoric advantage, yet to my knowledge nobody has called him on it. So I get accused of doing something I didn't do, but John doesn't get called on something he did do.

What I'm speaking of is his use of carriers to leap forward 18 hexes into my main sea lane. His carriers were under constant patrol surveillance. I knew right where they were. In real life, I could have immediately recalled my TFs as soon as his carriers started forward, but due to the game mechanics, I had to wait 24 hours.

Nothing wrong with what he did. That's just the way the game works and we all do it and enjoy it. But I think you can see that he indeed used a nonhistoric capability to his fullest advantage. But when he did so, I was the one accused of bad faith.

Man, that chapped me.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sometime ago, I had a PM from a forumite inquiring if I was soaking off. Right on top of that PM came Chickenboy's posts in my AAR. Putting the two together - especially from the tone - was easy.

I was not, did not and have never used soaking off missions. I think my reputation is such that my word alone would be enough, but apparently not, which really bothered me. The more I thought about it, the angrier I got.

I will be glad to make my files available so that anybody can check and see what TFs were out there and how I handled things, though I can't imagine anyone would want to go to that much trouble. But if you do, you'll see that I've always had lots of traffic between Sabang and Ceylon (duh!) and that all the TFs that were there were legit - supply and reinforcements inbound, empties and cripples outbound, etc. When John sprung his carriers forward, I did my best to get everything out of harm's way and largely succeeded.

I hope you can understand that one who hasn't done something doesn't like being repeatedly accused of doing it.

But another thing that rankled is that it was John taking maximum advantage of the game mechanics to work a nonhistoric advantage, yet to my knowledge nobody has called him on it. So I get accused of doing something I didn't do, but John doesn't get called on something he did do.

What I'm speaking of is his use of carriers to leap forward 18 hexes into my main sea lane. His carriers were under constant patrol surveillance. I knew right where they were. In real life, I could have immediately recalled my TFs as soon as his carriers started forward, but due to the game mechanics, I had to wait 24 hours.

Nothing wrong with what he did. That's just the way the game works and we all do it and enjoy it. But I think you can see that he indeed used a nonhistoric capability to his fullest advantage. But when he did so, I was the one accused of bad faith.

Man, that chapped me.

What I have found is CR that there is a religious base in this forum. By religious I mean they are ridged and emotional in their belief systems, and not willing to have a dialogue. The emotional part comes in fervent and self-righteous postings. I too have been personally attacked for my perspective. What I have found to be a good countermeasure is to simply block those that are both religious in their views and obnoxious in the presentation. I simply stopped my AAR and with blocking I still enjoy the forum, dialogue with those I find with interesting views, and share my passion for WitP AE,

[Cap Mandrake]

Reducing the size of supply convoys and setting them to low risk tolerance may help negate a deep carrier raid. You can also set their home ports to different bases so they dont all run the same way. You would need to up their risk tolerance as they approach Sabang.

You can also use low pt value AKL's or LST's.

As for this "chapping" business, given the time committment for the game, it is quite easy to get frustrated with apparent game exploits. I remember when your opponent nearly blew a gasket over task force refueling/rearming and harbor size when you invaded a certain island in the Ryukyu's way back when. [:)]


At such times, there is the Appalachian Trail and there has to be some mountain stream with brookies that will take a dry fly. [:)]