Matrix Games Forums

I would lean towards those that would say that both players should be at liberty to pursue whatever course they choose. As Nemo said: for every strategy there is a counter strategy. The first month or so of any game is going to have some distortions as both sides have the benefit of historical hindsight. Once you get beyond that it because much more fluid.

I have always contended that the game is more enjoyable if neither side has capabilities beyond what history tells us is true. The Manchuko garrison is a sticking point for me as the IJA feared the Sovs entering the fray. Now we all know that considering the situation on the Eastern front during the early part of the war that the Sovs were not going to embark on another war in far away places. Imperial HQ didn't know that with any degree of certainty. That is why the kept such a large force based there. To those who say Manchuka was stripped of troops: while true it was not until late in the war when things were going so badly for Japan that they had no choice.

A counter to that would be that the KMT did not and would not have conducted any offensive operations until the very last stages of the war. CKS was husbanding his forces for the inevitable fight with the CCP after the war ended. Furthermore, there would have been absolutely no coordination between the KMT and CCP even if they did go on offensive. WitP and AE make the Chinese army homogenous when it was anything but that in real life. Then again, the IJA is capable of mustering its forces and pushing the Chinese around far too easily than RL tells us was possible. The IJA had been involved in China since 1937 and had not been able to move beyond the game start line. In AE we see the IJA being able to mount a China offensive that is capable of accomplishing in a few months more than the RL Japanese could acomplish in four years

Point being that both sides are given capabilities beyond what history tells us. Both players have to adjust to this and play the best game possible.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Alfred,

Strategic options are about possibility not player strength. To every strategy there is a counter-strategy. To get caught up in the idea that someone didn't use counters in a specific game invalidates the basic concept that there are always counters is, IMO, incorrect.

Also, I would state the following to the points you made:
2. Since I held Rangoon I supplied Burma and CHina via sealift, not supply movement through the jungles. As a result I don't believe the recent changes materially effect the lessons to be learnt...

Nemo,

Am only going to comment on these two specific responses.

1. Have always agreed amd often posted that there is always a counter. However player strength is absolutely tied to the capacity of being able to devise and then implement the counter. There is absolutely no benefit derived from knowing there must be a counter if the player is incapable of accurately assessing

• the position
• the options
• the potential outcomes

I think it has been often demonstrated in this forum that the plans and counters proposed by some players come as a complete revelation to many other players. Some players do well just to see the present position, others regularly see the short term future but some look into the long term. Often an appropriate counter is only discerned if the the long term is factored into the calculations.

2. It does not matter how much supply is brought to Rangoon via sealift. That supply eventually only reaches China via Burmese bases and the monsoon effects do strike Burmese bases and the Chinese bases nearest to the border. You pushed/pulled supply to China before the current monsoon effect on supply movement was implemented.

Your game never reached the monsoon period or saw the loss of the Burmese bases to Japan. Hence you were able to maintain your Chinese hordes in supply and thereby counter the Japanese moves in China. Your opponent did not adjust his China play to take into account these factors (also see above comment about seeing counters). The situation you benefited from will not be experienced by 99% of Allied players who will be left without that particular counter to a Japanese redeployment of Manchukuo units without paying PPs.

My earlier post was in response to Canoerebel's claim that your AAR demonstrated how to counter a Manchukuo Army redployment to China without paying PPs. I still maintain it isn't because your counter was based on uniques circumstances which will not be accessable to 99% of Allied players.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: pws1225
CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?

For each punch there is a counter-punch and then a counter-counter-punch and so on.

If we dispense with the "No Restricted Units Across Borders" house rule, Japan will shift the Manchuria garrison to China. The Allies can counter effectively by shifting the India garrison into Burma and possibly thence into southern China, giving Japan fits. Japan can counter that move in certain ways, but the Allies may be able to thwart Japan's counter effectively. It's a complicated equation not subject to easy analysis, and a better player can beat the lesser player whichever side he fights from in these situations, but the Allies are by no means defenseless when facing such a strategim.

See Nemo's "Salutations and Solicitations" AAR for an example of an Allied player doing this.

Not a good example. Too many factors are no longer relevant.

1. Great disparity in player strength
2. Change to supply movement through Burma
3. Manchukuo was not gutted
4. Japanese player based all his China dispositions all power of artillery which was neutered before he could take advantage, leaving him greatly behind the curve in term or reprioritising
5. Japan never pursued an integrated strategy, its actions in China were not coordinated with overall offensive
6. Japan approached entire game as a test bed for disparate game features
7. Too much free intel given by Japan (see point 6)

Alfred

I agree with Alfred that the game Fionn & I played is probably not a good example. No one is gunna go in heavy on the arty, be kicking butt & taking names, and then have the arty lose their teeth just as their China campaign is kicking off.

Manchukuo WAS gutted for troops. But I really only pulled down heavily on the Tanks/Infantry after the teeth were pulled from my artillery. I guess for me it was more the timing of the issue – Arty was the king of the battle field when we started the game and I set up my units to take advantage of that. We both discussed arty during those stages and Fionn was looking into tactics to “quite down” the gunz. As soon as the new update came out we deployed it and arty was in the toilet. It is what it is… After the artillery was neutered Fionn suggested that in EA he could play with arty to give it back some chomp. I think we both realized that Arty in the current version of AE is a little too watered down.

Afterwards I made a few mistakes with terrain modifiers and I did not manage to stop supplies coming in. I don’t think what Fionn did was “gamey” nor do I think Alfred is suggesting that line of thought. Fionn gave me a thumping in this theatre and my hat is off to him.

I notice that only after Fionn was on the receiving end of the allied 4E bombers that he looked into changes to 4E bombers <grin>. For me – by then I’d pretty much shot my wad of decent fighter pilots against those big armored birdz.

In Singapore Fionn shared with me how he was trying to reinforce that base and noted info from the combat reports that showed AP/AK ships sunk with losses to allied troops. I bit on his private emails and continued to push troops down Malaya to try for a knock-down fight @ Singapore. When I arrived it was pretty much empty and Palambang was fast on its way to becoming a fortress. I was looking for a knockdown-drag-out fight @ Singapore to see how combat looked with the I-got-a-bigger-hammer-then-you fight. I tied down a lot of troops here that I probably would not have used if I hadn’t *known* Fionn was reinforcing Singapore. This phase of the war worked out just like Fionn planned. I learned an important lesson from this theatre.

The original intent of this game was to give Fionn some time playing AE with the intent of porting over his EA (Empires Ablaze) mod. The expected timeframe was 6-8 months…

Did I say I was gunna do everything I could to kick his arse? Yup! Of course that was somewhere around the first few turns while I was licking my chops in anticipation of using the Artillery units. I mean – I served on 8-inch and 155 SP guns for 12 years in the Guards. I was thrilled to see arty recognized (finally) as the king of the battlefield. The upgrade changed that <laughter>.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m NOT crying foul with Fionn and the game we played. Yes there are a LOT of management changes for Japan & I learned how to do some things by reading other players AARs and I learned some things through my successes and failures. AE was new to both of us. But my AAR was ALWAYS titled a test… I stopped using my AAR when Fionn told me that other readers had given him intel through comments they made. I don’t believe that anyone was intentionally sending info to Fionn. I just think that Fionn can read into comments made and gather “insights” that others would probably miss. And trust me – it’s not like Fionn “needed” any intel to help him give me a thumping… I just decided that I wasn’t willing to help the process out by adding anymore to the AAR. In fact I later tried a few times to leave info in the AAR that I *wanted* someone to comment on.

I asked a lot of questions in the forums and picked up a lot of good information but many of those questions probably gave Fionn a “look” into what I was thinking about in our game. Again – no sour grapes – no fouls called. I wanted/needed the answers and learned from a lot of the replies to my questions and from reading what other players were doing.

Sooooo:

1. – Probably true but you’re not gunna hear me admit it <grin>.
2. – No comment
3. – No, it was gutted but… Not severely until after the anti-artillery patch.
4. – Yes but…
5. – Yes
6. – Yes but… I Really did want to give Fionn a good thumping <grin>.
7. – I have the emails to prove discussions between us. Fionn IS a bright guy - I don't think there are too many in this forum that would deny that. He probably got his best intel from me... LoL. Those "discussion" emails pretty much petered out somewhere towards the end of the Singapore campaign… I’ll admit that I got my panties in a bunch over Singapore. It’s done now and I learned a valuable lesson.

I will say this – I learned a lot in playing Fionn. I enjoyed the game for the most part and freely admit he had me by my jewels when I had to cut out. I’m still not in a position to jump back in and play. In real life things are much better than when I had to stop but it’ll be a while before I have the time to get in and play again. For now I’ll lurk a bit every now and then and read a few AARs wistfully. That kinda hurts cuz this really is a fun game and the people on this forum are a lot of fun to hang with.