Matrix Games Forums

I do wish though, Mogami, that sometime you'd spend your energy trying to motivate others in the forum to clamor for reasonable change in the ground-combat system

Hi, Any aspect of WITP I felt required a change during testing I posted in private forum.
I don't clamor in public as I am a member of the test team. The public forum is the proper forum for non testers to post in. I am not the deciding vote. I often post my view or what I believe to be the design intent in response to public posts but I hope no one interpets this as opposition on my part. Since not everyone posts I try to present the entire view of a subject.
As a tester I would never protest the way the game resolves an event in public.
As a player I would not protest in public anything that I have been told is working according to design. Where I don't concurr and am able I modify my play or use House Rules. Where I can't impact the results I live with them. I see no point in protesting what I am told is correct. Now if I was not a tester and a thread for comments existed I would post my opinion 1 time. I would not on every occurance of the event repost my opinion.
There is no need to do this because after the first post the opinion is known. It is more important to get many persons making a single post then a few making the same posts over and over. (To me it sometimes verges on becoming SPAM to read the same thing over and over posted in every thread where the slightest connection can be made)

The are places for comments, there are places for Bug reports and OOB comments. A single person only needs to post 1 time for any single issue. However I am only posting my opinion here. If a person feels the need to devote their time to saying the same thing over and over that is their business.

I know I sound like a cheer leader to some people but that is not my intent. My intent is when a post comments on the game to present intent or how to deal with the issue in ways that reduce the discomfort.

I'll use ASW as an example.
The USN lost 71 DD in the Pacific. Many of these late in war to Kamikaze attacks.
The USN lost 52 submarines. Yet I often get the impression that more then a few players think USN submarines were almost invulerable to attack.
In a game where by mid 1942 or early 1943 the USN has already lost more DD then in actual war it is still expected USN submarine loss will be lower then in actual war.
In a game where USAAF heavybomber loss exceeds loss in Europe in actual war players feel USN submarine loss will be lower then in actual war.

It is not ASW formulas that produce the loss ratios. In actual war the scope of action was much less then in basic WITP game. Submarine encounters are far more frequent in game then in actual war.

While this does not imply the WITP ASW forumulas are 100 percent correct no alteration of them can be done unless the players are adhering to history.
Fewer subs on patrol. Patrol in safer waters. Targets in smaller unescorted (lightly escorted) TF. If there were then several thousand conatact reports with results ASW combat could still only be compared to history. The changes made by both players would result in subjective opinions and there would always be those on both sides who remained unconvinced by the other sides arguments.

I try to remain generally aloof from debates where results are not produced by bugs but where players just don't agree. I don't feel authoritive enough to say whether or not a PC that never conducted a single ASW attack actually has (or had) too strong or too low a rating in the game. If IJN ASW was so weak and produced 38 confirmed sinkings (understand I consider a sub lost to a DC but spotted prior to surface attack by ASW AC to be a victim of Japanese ASW warfare I don't spend much time worring over actual weapon just the overall ASW effort) Then when Japanese ASW efforts are 1000 percent of historic against USN submarine deployments that seek out targets in most dangerous areas rather then avoiding them I would expect 38000 (historic loss multiplied by increase in Japanese ASW effort (not effectivenss. A batter with a .200 avgerage who had 20 hits in 100 abats would still be a .200 batter if he had 2000 hits in 10,000 at bats) USN submarines to be lost in war and instead I see 60 to 80. Now this result is not enough to make me clamor. I don't protest results in other persons games just mine. In mine submarines survive ASW actions. Submarines sink enemy ships and I lose on avgerage less then half the number my opponents lose.

Ground combat and movement work for me. I don't expect the systems to do the work.
I send force enough to win the battle or I avoid the location. I allow time for movements.
I don't try to interpet them I conform to them. I would do this no matter what system was used. I don't find the system so different from others I've encountered although my personal choice remains hexside to hexside rather then both sides in single hex. I'd use the old "advance/retreat after combat systems. But one advantage shared hex has is movement can be plotted easier because it is not dependant on combat results.
Just plotting muti hex attacks against a single defending hex produces nearly the same results as far as defending is concerned. In WITP the attacker has to be in the same hex this greatly favors the defender who understands it is better to force the attacker into 3 hexes then allow them to concentrate into 1.

Example
Attacker has 100 AV. In single hex defender needs 50+AV to avoid retreat
By making attacker protect both flanks in hex where main defense being made defender now only needs 16+ AV (attacker divides into 3x33AV stacks opposed by 3x16AV defending stacks defender saves over 2 AV)

However in WITP most often I encounter the defender placing all units into single hex.

A multi hex defense also allows defender to use units not involved in one line of defense in new line while prior units allowed to retreat to where they can rest and refit. The attacker pretty much has to reuse units from one line to the next.

I'm not saying any view expressed on WITP combat or movement are wrong I am saying they are not applicable because the systems are not being designed they are already implemented so rather then use my effort in critism I use my effort in adapting.

My pills are making me babble (my head feels like it is a blimp) Anyway everyone should feel free to continue to post what and where and when they please. I don't clamor because at the end of the day I am more satisfied with WITP then I am at odds with it.
My main concern is to eliminate bugs not change what works even if I might be annoyed that it does not reflect 100 percent "my way"

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I know I sound like a cheer leader to some people but that is not my intent. My intent is when a post comments on the game to present intent or how to deal with the issue in ways that reduce the discomfort.

I respect your position, but I disagree insofar as I feel it will likely lead to no good change.

I'll use ASW as an example. The USN lost 71 DD in the Pacific. Many of these late in war to Kamikaze attacks.
The USN lost 52 submarines. Yet I often get the impression that more then a few players think USN submarines were almost invulerable to attack. In a game where by mid 1942 or early 1943 the USN has already lost more DD then in actual war it is still expected USN submarine loss will be lower then in actual war. In a game where USAAF heavybomber loss exceeds loss in Europe in actual war players feel USN submarine loss will be lower then in actual war.

It is not ASW formulas that produce the loss ratios. In actual war the scope of action was much less then in basic WITP game. Submarine encounters are far more frequent in game then in actual war.

Please, let's stick to ASW and forget the heavy bombers. Otherwise, this conversation will never stay on track.

In my PBEM game with Chez, through 1 June 1942 the Japanese have lost 19 submarines. I'm not exactly sure how Chez deploys these boats, but I would guess that by now he's a bit gun shy. Be that as it may, my USN kill rate based on enemy submarine contacts thus far is upwards of 50% (I'm sure it's more like 65% but I can't prove it so we'll just leave it at something over half the time), and all Chez has really done with his submarines is to locate them along logical shipping lanes, in deep-water hexes, and then wait for a convoy contact. Well, contact he eventually gets, and then . . . glub-glub-glub . . . down goes another one of his boats. Just like that.

To date, Chez has sunk precisely one (as in uno) American transport that was in a convoy. Oh yeah, and then that sub of his who got that kill went . . . glub-glub-glub.

What are my convoys like? About normal, I'd say. I usually have fifteen or twenty transports in one with an escort of three destroyers. That would be representative. The best destroyers of mine for this duty are, as you know, the flush decks, with an 8 rating for ASW work (mostly--one or two are only rated 4) and decent crew experience for night combat. But I haven't enough of those to go around, so I must fill in with other assets, and these ships, as a rule, do not have an experience rating over 55 for night combat. At least they didn't when I started. Some of these ships have since crawled up to or near that 55 night-experience level, but I haven't seen an IJN boat for two or three weeks game time now, and most of those Japanese losses came much earlier in the game. And I'd guess half or more of them came at the hands of regular USN destroyer types, with the crew's night experience less than 55. (I told you about that one kill made by an Australian mindsweeper with an ASW rating of 2 and a crew night-experience rating of 36 or 37 or whatever it was.

Now I don't know about you but that tells me a lot about the ASW model. Or, to be a bit more conservative with my statement, it suggests strongly that the ASW routine does not work especially well. Combined with the kind of reports from ingame that I've read from others, it's a virtual snap to draw a completely negative picture of that model in my mind.

Also, I haven't found the need to form special ASW groups, and from what I've read I don't think it would be fair to do so, for either of us--after all, as far as I know both Chez and I are looking for the best possible simulation.

While this does not imply the WITP ASW forumulas are 100 percent correct no alteration of them can be done unless the players are adhering to history. Fewer subs on patrol. Patrol in safer waters. Targets in smaller unescorted (lightly escorted) TF. If there were then several thousand conatact reports with results ASW combat could still only be compared to history. The changes made by both players would result in subjective opinions and there would always be those on both sides who remained unconvinced by the other sides arguments.

The world is full of people who remain unconvinced by good argument. So what? I run into that nonsense all the time. Are we supposed to stop all quest for progress because of that? I don't think so.

I try to remain generally aloof from debates where results are not produced by bugs but where players just don't agree. I don't feel authoritive enough to say whether or not a PC that never conducted a single ASW attack actually has (or had) too strong or too low a rating in the game. If IJN ASW was so weak and produced 38 confirmed sinkings (understand I consider a sub lost to a DC but spotted prior to surface attack by ASW AC to be a victim of Japanese ASW warfare I don't spend much time worring over actual weapon just the overall ASW effort) Then when Japanese ASW efforts are 1000 percent of historic against USN submarine deployments that seek out targets in most dangerous areas rather then avoiding them I would expect 38000 (historic loss multiplied by increase in Japanese ASW effort (not effectivenss. A batter with a .200 avgerage who had 20 hits in 100 abats would still be a .200 batter if he had 2000 hits in 10,000 at bats) USN submarines to be lost in war and instead I see 60 to 80. Now this result is not enough to make me clamor. I don't protest results in other persons games just mine. In mine submarines survive ASW actions. Submarines sink enemy ships and I lose on avgerage less then half the number my opponents lose.

Go back and read what I wrote, please. It is entirely representative of my play with WitP up until this time. I don't make this stuff up.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Sorry I have a very bad cold. When I don't take the med I can't see the monitor or concentrate to do turns and when I take the med I fall alseep. Been fighting it for about a week. Right after I wake up I'm good for a few hours but then I wear out.
Yesterday was the first day I was unable to send back at least one turn to each game.

I had a flu like that a few months back...can't and don't want to do a thing. Glad you are feeling better.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mogami


I'll use ASW as an example. The USN lost 71 DD in the Pacific. Many of these late in war to Kamikaze attacks.
The USN lost 52 submarines. Yet I often get the impression that more then a few players think USN submarines were almost invulerable to attack. In a game where by mid 1942 or early 1943 the USN has already lost more DD then in actual war it is still expected USN submarine loss will be lower then in actual war.

It is not ASW formulas that produce the loss ratios. In actual war the scope of action was much less then in basic WITP game. Submarine encounters are far more frequent in game then in actual war

I try to remain generally aloof from debates where results are not produced by bugs but where players just don't agree. I don't feel authoritive enough to say whether or not a PC that never conducted a single ASW attack actually has (or had) too strong or too low a rating in the game. If IJN ASW was so weak and produced 38 confirmed sinkings (understand I consider a sub lost to a DC but spotted prior to surface attack by ASW AC to be a victim of Japanese ASW warfare I don't spend much time worring over actual weapon just the overall ASW effort) Then when Japanese ASW efforts are 1000 percent of historic against USN submarine deployments that seek out targets in most dangerous areas rather then avoiding them I would expect 38000 (historic loss multiplied by increase in Japanese ASW effort (not effectivenss. A batter with a .200 avgerage who had 20 hits in 100 abats would still be a .200 batter if he had 2000 hits in 10,000 at bats) USN submarines to be lost in war and instead I see 60 to 80. Now this result is not enough to make me clamor. I don't protest results in other persons games just mine. In mine submarines survive ASW actions. Submarines sink enemy ships and I lose on avgerage less then half the number my opponents lose.

Mogami, first I'd like to say, from my perspective - you present a solid voice for "issues not people" in this forum and are doing a near perfect job as a moderator ! ( human = near perfect as best case )

But, as regards ASW ... we aren't saying the ASW results indicate a BUG ... we are saying they represent a design failure. In other words, we accept the game is working as designed - we however, believe the design is wrong. In my day to day work ( implementing computer system for companies ) we would say - we did not give the "business" what they needed. What was needed was a more accurate model of ASW ( and SW ! ).

Perhaps what you need to see is WHEN, HOW, WHERE these USN subs were lost ( I don't have time to work on that this morning - but given that only 42 of the wartime losses were due to enemy action and that I've got the sources - it shouldn't take long to put this together - so stay tuned ).

The IJN ASW program did not start until late 1943. As things are in the game the subs will be lost before the historical program even starts. And were do we get the idea that players are using submarines a-historically agressively ? My belief is that the USN sub commanders believed they were being aggressive !!! I haven't seen anything yet that indicates USN sub commanders were historically hidding themselves from the shipping lanes from the beginning of the war ( as you seem to indicate ). Please give us a source for this ! Re-stated - we've been challenged to operate our submarines more historically [ less aggressively] before complaining about the results - and I want to challenge this head on. We should be using our submarines historically and aggressively ! Not a-historically and passively !

Of course, my experience as the IJN is even worse - and TRIS's description of what he sees happening to CHEZ is exactly what I see happening to me. I get seen and I get sunk. And the "loss ratio" is about 1.25 submarines for each merchant ship sunk ( and BTW I'm only sinking about 20% versus the historical merchant ships sunk in the same time period ). So both ASW and SW ( ability of submarines to his targets ) need work.

We understand the powers that be - disagree ( they must be reading different books than we are ! ) hence some are trying to fiddle with the database to fix the problem. But as long as the forum exists, we will also try to advvocate for corrections in that medium.

After yesterday being quiet, Mogami has responded to the renewed presence of Allied aircraft at Port Moresby with Lae based fighter sweeps. Definitely looking like the Solomons, New Guinea and Southern DEI could well be the hotspots in the Pacific to come in this game.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/12/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 33 encounters mine field at Soerabaja (22,65)

Japanese Ships
MSW Fumi Maru #2
MSW Fukeui Maru #7
MSW Fuji Maru
MSW Chitose Maru
MSW Choyo Maru #2
MSW Ataka Maru
MSW W.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 28


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
16 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
B-17E Fortresses bombing at 19000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 27
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 13
P-39D Airacobra x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 5 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 16 destroyed, 1 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8366 troops, 288 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 21930 troops, 151 guns, 3 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
136 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rahaeng

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28427 troops, 182 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 92343 troops, 496 guns, 289 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
158 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 12365 troops, 128 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 63419 troops, 548 guns, 258 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported

The big picture...

The big picture...

The big picture...

The Big Picture...

Keep in mind these pics are a few days old so the subs etc may or may not be where they are in the pics.[:D]

Port Moresby is going to be difficult to keep operational I fear. I've not been able to reinforce PM to my satisfaction as all the bases on Oz which support it needed development and reinforcement as well, and I was not going to throw more troops into a potentially untenable situation. I should have no problem holding onto it, it just is going to suck for the units based there for awhile, that's all.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/13/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 31

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 8 destroyed, 13 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Runway hits 15

Aircraft Attacking:
B-17E Fortresses bombing at 19000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Lae , at 54,87


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 31


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
29 casualties reported

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
B-17E Fortresses bombing at 19000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 23
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 12
P-39D Airacobra x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 11 destroyed, 2 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 13 destroyed, 1 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
G3M Nell x 25
G4M1 Betty x 104

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 8
P-39D Airacobra x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
G3M Nell: 2 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Kittyhawk I: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 7 destroyed
PBY Catalina: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
1 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 115

Aircraft Attacking:
G3M Nells bombing at 10000 feet
G4M1 Bettys bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8390 troops, 290 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 21810 troops, 147 guns, 4 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
185 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rahaeng

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28567 troops, 186 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 92566 troops, 494 guns, 290 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
75 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 12283 troops, 124 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 63518 troops, 554 guns, 257 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported

Aaaaack! Land Death Star...[X(] 32 IJA units 1 hex SW of Hengchow.

OK...I suck at land combat with this model.[:)] What are you supposed to do about this? One can't position units on flanks of bases as they don't "project" a ZOC so they can't curb movement by enemy units which simply bypass them and they are then vulnerable to being cut off and encircled. Japanese units can use rail so they can hit anywhere at the moment while the Chinese "reserves" have to use road movement to react...invariably too late given the weight of force Japan can bring to any point along rail line. All bases along rail line are therefore basically indefensible.

This whole area may as well be abandonned immediately in December because of this. I've a whack of supply in Changsha and little in Hengchow, despite HQs.

Any advice would be appreciated. Basic land strategies from years of wargaming don't apply. I'm at a loss.

HELP!!![:D]

Also, I gave up trying to recon the rail lines. The interface basically bored me to death. I would have liked to have seen Air Search work over land, not just vs naval units. (asked about this during beta but no dice) I don't have the time or patience to point and click over every hex everyturn hoping to find a hex which accepts the selection (needs a unit in it if not a base hex to be acceptable as a recon targetable hex)...this game is a chore enough as it is.

Mogami has chased the RAAF out of PM again. [:)] I need Cooktown at a level 5 soon!

Japanese CVs reported off Amboina heading west. Hmmm...perhaps he plans on softening up Timor?

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/14/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

No Japanese losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
G3M Nell x 18
G4M1 Betty x 82

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PBY Catalina: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 2 destroyed

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 39

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 5th Chinese Cavalry Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 3
Ki-30 Ann x 2
Ki-32 Mary x 2
Ki-21 Sally x 22
Ki-48 Lily x 14
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 2 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
93 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 51st Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 32
Ki-30 Ann x 27
Ki-32 Mary x 10
Ki-21 Sally x 55
Ki-48 Lily x 26
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
168 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 89th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 18
Ki-48 Lily x 7
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48 Lily: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Macassar , at 30,69


Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 11
B-25C Mitchell x 21


Allied aircraft losses
Martin 139: 2 damaged

Runway hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pomala , at 32,69


Allied aircraft
Martin 139 x 12
Hudson I x 25


No Allied losses

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

No Japanese losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 68,61

Japanese Ships
PC Ch 17
PC Ch 32
AP Kashiwara Maru

Allied Ships
SS Haddock


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8373 troops, 289 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 21776 troops, 144 guns, 4 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
76 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rahaeng

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28712 troops, 189 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 92824 troops, 497 guns, 291 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 12229 troops, 121 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 63662 troops, 555 guns, 259 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
31 casualties reported

Hi, OK it is mid Aug 1942. Japan intends on advance in Burma to secure Rangoon.
Clear RR. In China.
Build defense barrier in Central and South Pacific
Clear southern SRA .
Establish Air control in areas Allied bombing currently unopposed.

There, Now you know.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK it is mid Aug 1942. Japan intends on advance in Burma to secure Rangoon.
Clear RR. In China.
Build defense barrier in Central and South Pacific
Clear southern SRA .
Establish Air control in areas Allied bombing currently unopposed.

There, Now you know.

[:D] I was being facetious! As were you...[;)]

As I mentioned to Mog when I sent the turn back "Holy Moly!" That furball was bloody over Rangoon. I wonder how long the Battle of Britain would have lasted if it were resolved like today's battle? A week? Two?[:D] It went on forever as I wanted to watch my Hurricanes fall like flies and the Warhawks kill everything.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/15/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 49
A6M3 Zero x 5
Ki-21 Sally x 54
Ki-49 Helen x 72

Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 41
Spitfire Vb x 10
P-40E Warhawk x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 92 destroyed, 2 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 46 destroyed, 7 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 38 destroyed, 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 56 destroyed, 14 damaged
Spitfire Vb: 5 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 26 destroyed, 5 damaged

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 89th Chinese Corps, at 47,36

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 35
Ki-30 Ann x 24
Ki-32 Mary x 12
Ki-21 Sally x 77
Ki-48 Lily x 29
Ki-46-II Dinah x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-30 Ann: 2 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally: 3 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
183 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1

Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 1
P-39D Airacobra x 1

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 64,61

Japanese Ships
PG Zuiko Maru
MSW Banshu Maru #52
MSW Banshu Maru #51
MSW Banshu Maru #18

Allied Ships
SS Haddock

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 64,61

Japanese Ships
PG Zuiko Maru
MSW Banshu Maru #52
MSW Banshu Maru #51
MSW Banshu Maru #18

Allied Ships
SS Haddock


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8340 troops, 289 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 21710 troops, 141 guns, 4 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
180 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rahaeng

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28794 troops, 190 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 93064 troops, 498 guns, 290 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
77 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Tavoy

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 12156 troops, 115 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 63772 troops, 559 guns, 261 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Aaaaack! Land Death Star...[X(] 32 IJA units 1 hex SW of Hengchow.

OK...I suck at land combat with this model.[:)] What are you supposed to do about this? One can't position units on flanks of bases as they don't "project" a ZOC so they can't curb movement by enemy units which simply bypass them and they are then vulnerable to being cut off and encircled. Japanese units can use rail so they can hit anywhere at the moment while the Chinese "reserves" have to use road movement to react...invariably too late given the weight of force Japan can bring to any point along rail line. All bases along rail line are therefore basically indefensible.

This whole area may as well be abandonned immediately in December because of this. I've a whack of supply in Changsha and little in Hengchow, despite HQs.

Any advice would be appreciated. Basic land strategies from years of wargaming don't apply. I'm at a loss.

HELP!!![:D]

Also, I gave up trying to recon the rail lines. The interface basically bored me to death. I would have liked to have seen Air Search work over land, not just vs naval units. (asked about this during beta but no dice) I don't have the time or patience to point and click over every hex everyturn hoping to find a hex which accepts the selection (needs a unit in it if not a base hex to be acceptable as a recon targetable hex)...this game is a chore enough as it is.

I'm hoping my reserves based a few hexes NW of the line can respond fast enough...if they can get there in time I may be able to hold.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, OK it is mid Aug 1942. Japan intends on advance in Burma to secure Rangoon.
Clear RR. In China.
Build defense barrier in Central and South Pacific
Clear southern SRA .
Establish Air control in areas Allied bombing currently unopposed.

There, Now you know.

[:D] I was being facetious! As were you...[;)]

Hi, No I was quite serious. I've told you what I am going to do. All that remains to be decided is how much I will kill/lose in the process.

I know how you plan to play, you said so when we started (and I agreed to not take advantage of this knowledge by stripping areas you wont attack etc). This way we can play the game without gaming it. Because of this, your statement above was taken by me as a funny by you.

For example, all the bases on the West Coast have major air/land/sea assets which many would through into the fray even without the forknowledge that you don't plan to game the system which is sooo easy for either player to do. I even run a CS convoy to Nome Alaska.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Aaaaack! Land Death Star...[X(] 32 IJA units 1 hex SW of Hengchow.

OK...I suck at land combat with this model.[:)] What are you supposed to do about this? One can't position units on flanks of bases as they don't "project" a ZOC so they can't curb movement by enemy units which simply bypass them and they are then vulnerable to being cut off and encircled. Japanese units can use rail so they can hit anywhere at the moment while the Chinese "reserves" have to use road movement to react...invariably too late given the weight of force Japan can bring to any point along rail line. All bases along rail line are therefore basically indefensible.

This whole area may as well be abandonned immediately in December because of this. I've a whack of supply in Changsha and little in Hengchow, despite HQs.

Any advice would be appreciated. Basic land strategies from years of wargaming don't apply. I'm at a loss.

HELP!!![:D]

Also, I gave up trying to recon the rail lines. The interface basically bored me to death. I would have liked to have seen Air Search work over land, not just vs naval units. (asked about this during beta but no dice) I don't have the time or patience to point and click over every hex everyturn hoping to find a hex which accepts the selection (needs a unit in it if not a base hex to be acceptable as a recon targetable hex)...this game is a chore enough as it is.

I agree re the limitations of the recon routines. They're no better thought out than the rest of this game. It's same same all the way through.

This was not a well-thought-out simulation. It's a fun game to play, per Gary's usual stamp, but almost nothing makes sense in isolation, and when the various game routines are called upon to interact with one another the result soon becomes silly. As it must, mathematically speaking.

If "accuracy" is assumed to hold a value of 1, then any part of the game which is less than "accurate" must be assigned a value less than 1. So, if the "accuracy" of land-combat movement rates is just .9 (compared to an "accurate" score of 1), and these movement rates are then called on to interact with some another aspect of play which is itself less than accurate (for example, the distribution of supplies where they're needed), and we assign this second aspect of play (supply distribution) an "accuracy" score of .9 as well, then this will result in a new "accuracy" score of .81 when we consider the effect of these two apsects of play as they work in conjunction with each other. In other words, the product of these two play components combining in the game is less "accurate" than the two individual game-routine parts were when considered in isolation. The new combined game function they make up when they interact lands further away from the ideal score of 1.

That's the theory, and this is why it's crucial not to start with false values. This game is full of false values, dubious assumptions based on isolated (and sometimes totally misunderstood) examples from history, etc. The result in play is predictable, as these various routines, already compromised, serve to frustrate themselves more still.

Given the rules set as it exists, and as a practical matter in the game, if I were you I would spread my forces out to form the "fronts" Mogami mentioned a week or so ago. These units of yours, set off to either side, will not be on road or rail hexes and so will be very difficult to even get at, and slow to reduce and/or force into retreat once Mogami does make contact. This will also oblige Mogami to dilute his force. If he doesn't react to cover these flanking movements of yours, then simply surround him with these units you have on your flanks. And like that.

This doesn't take away the inherent Japanese advantage of superior force and a better supply network, but it should compel a careful Japanese player to string himself out in conformity with your movements, and eventually this will likely result in your opponent having too little force at the critical road/rail hex you primarily wish to hold to force you back. Even if you are forced back, and assuming the Japanese pursue, the enemy will have to consume yet more precious time trailing after you over cross-country paths, wearing his troops out in the process from the exertion. Wed this to his now-fast-degrading supply lines, etc, and the picture ought to become clear. In time, you will bring the Japanese player to a halt with this strategy. His troops will simply be too weak to attack you anymore.

At least that's how I read the land-combat system as it applies to China. I don't like it any more than you do, Ron, but that's how it seems to boil down.