A couple of thoughts having read through the last few posts. I too am up against a cautious Allied opponent in my PBEM who is content to give up ground rather than risk a decisive encounter while he is still weaker than Japan militarily. For example, Burma was surrendered with hardly a shot being fired and when I invaded Northern Oz, and then the Eastern seaboard subsequently, my opponent was happy to pull back as far as Alice Springs and Rockhampton without challenging my advance. Historically, these acts would have been completely unacceptable for the Allies from a political and diplomatic standpoint, but there are no penalties in game terms to prevent a Sir Robin approach of this nature. Indeed it makes a lot of sense from a gameplay perspective as the Allied player can thus conserve his forces and build up his offensive capability more or less with impunity beyond the range of military intervention.
I agree that this does detract from what could be a very interesting mid-game period for the Japan player who is then forced to wait until the great clunking fist of Allied material superiority descends on him (circa early 43).
What I may propose in my next game - assuming anyone will agree to this - are some HRs to try and cover the political dimension. E.g. Burma cannot be abandoned until at least one land battle has taken place on Burmese soil - then a withdrawal can be attempted (as was the case in real life). I'd be happy to play with such a rule as Allies - after all, even if you lose a few Burma Rifle units in the retreat you will get plenty of replacements later. Of course, there may also need to be some Japanese rules to complement this, such as the Japanese rarely withdrew or surrendered once they had dug in but this can be discussed.
Right now, I am in a game where up to Sept 42 there has been no Coral Sea, no Midway, and naval losses since the bloody early days have been more or less confined to the odd AK and SS. I am not in any way criticising my opponent, who is a very reliable and honourable player, but like Lemon I would prefer a more aggressive style of play next time round.
Empire of the Rising Lemon? SqzMyLemon (Japan) v Smeulders (Allies)
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
The most advanced nations are always those who navigate the most -
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
Thanks for posting yubari and Walker84.
I too try not to criticize my opponent personally either, as like it or not, pulling back and conserving ones forces is a viable strategy for an Allied player. So I can't fault the stratgey itself. I will however echo your thoughts in that it makes for a very tedious game. I'd like to make this expressly understood, I never once expected the Allied player to commit to this notion of a decisive battle in 1942 as the odds are stacked heavily in Japan's favour and I agree with avoiding that as much as possible as an Allied player. I also never expect an Allied player to stupidly commit his forces using poor play to simply fight for fighting's sake, as many AFB's raise that point as soon as a Sir Robin is criticized. That being said I don't think the Japanese players should then have to resort to commiting incredibly risky operations against strongly defended bases 1000's of miiles from their own support simply to hope there is some action in the game and the Allied player doesn't completely turtle. It shouldn't even be referred to as a turtle either as that implies there is a hard shell to crack first, clearly not the case ever against a Sir Robin. [:D]
I just don't understand the concept of simply withdrawing and avoiding combat in general all over the map. KB can't be everywhere and there are numerous chances for smaller fleet actions between SCTF's as opposed to worrying strictly about a CV clash. I split KB often to support different objectives so the argument of a KB death star doesn't apply, I'm sure his carriers never left the West coast other than to ferry planes possibly. I just felt all game that no matter where I pushed my opponent would simply withdraw and avoid losses. He's done it all game with the exception of his defence of Java. He only commits when he has pretty much every advantage and yet expects me to commit my forces when I clearly don't have an advantage, and considering I have to guess where he will actually stand and fight, why would I risk my forces as he certainly does not? Now that his forces have the upperhand in Burma that's where he'll concentrate his efforts and avoid anything major in the Pacific as far as I can tell.
If I had invaded Northern Australia I believe he too would have simply withdrawn. He withdrew completely in Burma with not one shot being fired. Past behaviour predicts future I've heard, and in this case I believe it. Nothing my opponent did all game gave me the impression he'd risk anything other than when it was risk free for him to do so, yet he expects me to take risks all the time just in the vain hope there will be a battle. As I mentioned before, to me this is simply bad gamemanship. He completely denudes forward bases of any naval or air units to conserve strength. That's fine, but does he then expect me to target those same useless bases for the sake of shelling empty airfields and search for non-existent naval forces? I said it numerous times that it takes two to play. I have already admitted my failure of countering a Sir Robin, but I don't think that's solely responsible for the way the game has gone. I believe a Sir Robin strategy is only viable against an attempt at auto-victory by Japan, any other case it's simply a tactic to ensure an overwhelming advantage in 1943 and onwards.
I agree Walker84 that the game can't take into consideration the politics of the time that would have made a Sir Robin strategy impossible to implement. I have nothing but respect for the fact the Allies historically fought with the hand they were dealt with until times got better. I have immense respect for Allied players that echo those sentiments in many of the current ongoing games and show that being aggressive combined with smart play make the game incredibly rich and engaging for both sides in 1942! I do NOT respect a pull back and wait until I can crush my opponent with superior equipment, numbers and technology strategy.
Again, I'm simply frustrated and find the game incredibly boring. The only thing I enjoy is China and running the economy. I really enjoy the logistics of the movement of resources and convoy organization. If anybody out there needs an economy minded player for a 2x2 let me know!
I too try not to criticize my opponent personally either, as like it or not, pulling back and conserving ones forces is a viable strategy for an Allied player. So I can't fault the stratgey itself. I will however echo your thoughts in that it makes for a very tedious game. I'd like to make this expressly understood, I never once expected the Allied player to commit to this notion of a decisive battle in 1942 as the odds are stacked heavily in Japan's favour and I agree with avoiding that as much as possible as an Allied player. I also never expect an Allied player to stupidly commit his forces using poor play to simply fight for fighting's sake, as many AFB's raise that point as soon as a Sir Robin is criticized. That being said I don't think the Japanese players should then have to resort to commiting incredibly risky operations against strongly defended bases 1000's of miiles from their own support simply to hope there is some action in the game and the Allied player doesn't completely turtle. It shouldn't even be referred to as a turtle either as that implies there is a hard shell to crack first, clearly not the case ever against a Sir Robin. [:D]
I just don't understand the concept of simply withdrawing and avoiding combat in general all over the map. KB can't be everywhere and there are numerous chances for smaller fleet actions between SCTF's as opposed to worrying strictly about a CV clash. I split KB often to support different objectives so the argument of a KB death star doesn't apply, I'm sure his carriers never left the West coast other than to ferry planes possibly. I just felt all game that no matter where I pushed my opponent would simply withdraw and avoid losses. He's done it all game with the exception of his defence of Java. He only commits when he has pretty much every advantage and yet expects me to commit my forces when I clearly don't have an advantage, and considering I have to guess where he will actually stand and fight, why would I risk my forces as he certainly does not? Now that his forces have the upperhand in Burma that's where he'll concentrate his efforts and avoid anything major in the Pacific as far as I can tell.
If I had invaded Northern Australia I believe he too would have simply withdrawn. He withdrew completely in Burma with not one shot being fired. Past behaviour predicts future I've heard, and in this case I believe it. Nothing my opponent did all game gave me the impression he'd risk anything other than when it was risk free for him to do so, yet he expects me to take risks all the time just in the vain hope there will be a battle. As I mentioned before, to me this is simply bad gamemanship. He completely denudes forward bases of any naval or air units to conserve strength. That's fine, but does he then expect me to target those same useless bases for the sake of shelling empty airfields and search for non-existent naval forces? I said it numerous times that it takes two to play. I have already admitted my failure of countering a Sir Robin, but I don't think that's solely responsible for the way the game has gone. I believe a Sir Robin strategy is only viable against an attempt at auto-victory by Japan, any other case it's simply a tactic to ensure an overwhelming advantage in 1943 and onwards.
I agree Walker84 that the game can't take into consideration the politics of the time that would have made a Sir Robin strategy impossible to implement. I have nothing but respect for the fact the Allies historically fought with the hand they were dealt with until times got better. I have immense respect for Allied players that echo those sentiments in many of the current ongoing games and show that being aggressive combined with smart play make the game incredibly rich and engaging for both sides in 1942! I do NOT respect a pull back and wait until I can crush my opponent with superior equipment, numbers and technology strategy.
Again, I'm simply frustrated and find the game incredibly boring. The only thing I enjoy is China and running the economy. I really enjoy the logistics of the movement of resources and convoy organization. If anybody out there needs an economy minded player for a 2x2 let me know!
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
I'm going to take issue with you again I'm afraid Sqz.
That's exaclty what your carriers are for - covering invasions away from your land based aircraft (OK, not recklessly, but we're not talking about invading San Fransisco). For roughly a year and a half the Japanese have more carriers, better aircraft, better pilots, more experienced surface forces, a larger unrestricted army. Other than 4E bombers Japan has every advantage going - well beyond those that existed historically.
When does Japan declare whether it is going for an auto-victory or not? It doesn't. Every Allied commander must assume that is what Japan is going for and prepare accordingly. Indeed Japan must go for the win and the Allies must aim to avoid it otherwise there is no imperative to fight for anywhere...... unless you have the overwhelming advantage you mention. VPs represent (imperfectly) the allies will to fight on. If Japan does not shoot for that goal then it defeats itself, without even the need for the Allies to get involved.
For the first 6 months at least you have the overwhelming advantage, no matter where you choose to take. You've got to use it to achieve strategic goals - isolate Australia by taking Noumea, Fiji, Line islands and south pacific. Invade India or East cost of Australia or Pearl, something that he will need to respond to. Taking the historical perimeter just does not do the job and is beneath Japans capabilities. You only need to read PZB thread to see what can be done with a well run Japan. If you haven't tried something significant you can't complain if he doesn't choose to fight you.
I should declare two interests in posting this. Firstly as a predominantly Japanese player this is what I do to a Sir Robin defence:
Other than 2 CVE's sunk shuttling to the front, no allied carriers have been involved in combat. Everything my opponent could pull out, he did (including sending the entire dutch airforce to Australia) . I just made sure he didn't get the breathing room to get an advantage from it. Noumea Fiji and the Pago Pago area are in Japanese hands (or shortly will be). India was invaded and evacuated, Nth Oz and the Aleutians are also Japanese. I have no problem with my opponent's strategy and I look forward to defending the Empire. Playing a conservative Japan is just not an option.
The second interest is that I was Yubari's opponent. In my first game as the Allies, it is true I defended deep because I know what Japan is capable of and I was expecting him to play Japan as it needs to be. My bad, I guess. Everything stopped around June. Despite the fact I was still out-numbered and out-classed I started taking back territory (Aleutians) in Sept 42 - well before I should have, simply for something to do.
invade recklessly far flung outposts
That's exaclty what your carriers are for - covering invasions away from your land based aircraft (OK, not recklessly, but we're not talking about invading San Fransisco). For roughly a year and a half the Japanese have more carriers, better aircraft, better pilots, more experienced surface forces, a larger unrestricted army. Other than 4E bombers Japan has every advantage going - well beyond those that existed historically.
I believe a Sir Robin strategy is only viable against an attempt at auto-victory by Japan, any other case it's simply a tactic to ensure an overwhelming advantage in 1943 and onwards.
When does Japan declare whether it is going for an auto-victory or not? It doesn't. Every Allied commander must assume that is what Japan is going for and prepare accordingly. Indeed Japan must go for the win and the Allies must aim to avoid it otherwise there is no imperative to fight for anywhere...... unless you have the overwhelming advantage you mention. VPs represent (imperfectly) the allies will to fight on. If Japan does not shoot for that goal then it defeats itself, without even the need for the Allies to get involved.
He only commits when he has pretty much every advantage and yet expects me to commit my forces when I clearly don't have an advantage, and considering I have to guess where he will actually stand and fight, why would I risk my forces as he certainly does not?
For the first 6 months at least you have the overwhelming advantage, no matter where you choose to take. You've got to use it to achieve strategic goals - isolate Australia by taking Noumea, Fiji, Line islands and south pacific. Invade India or East cost of Australia or Pearl, something that he will need to respond to. Taking the historical perimeter just does not do the job and is beneath Japans capabilities. You only need to read PZB thread to see what can be done with a well run Japan. If you haven't tried something significant you can't complain if he doesn't choose to fight you.
I should declare two interests in posting this. Firstly as a predominantly Japanese player this is what I do to a Sir Robin defence:
Other than 2 CVE's sunk shuttling to the front, no allied carriers have been involved in combat. Everything my opponent could pull out, he did (including sending the entire dutch airforce to Australia) . I just made sure he didn't get the breathing room to get an advantage from it. Noumea Fiji and the Pago Pago area are in Japanese hands (or shortly will be). India was invaded and evacuated, Nth Oz and the Aleutians are also Japanese. I have no problem with my opponent's strategy and I look forward to defending the Empire. Playing a conservative Japan is just not an option.
The second interest is that I was Yubari's opponent. In my first game as the Allies, it is true I defended deep because I know what Japan is capable of and I was expecting him to play Japan as it needs to be. My bad, I guess. Everything stopped around June. Despite the fact I was still out-numbered and out-classed I started taking back territory (Aleutians) in Sept 42 - well before I should have, simply for something to do.
- Attachments
-
- May6.jpg (59.77 KiB) Viewed 214 times
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
ORIGINAL: Yakface
I'm going to take issue with you again I'm afraid Sqz.
invade recklessly far flung outposts
That's exaclty what your carriers are for - covering invasions away from your land based aircraft (OK, not recklessly, but we're not talking about invading San Fransisco). For roughly a year and a half the Japanese have more carriers, better aircraft, better pilots, more experienced surface forces, a larger unrestricted army. Other than 4E bombers Japan has every advantage going - well beyond those that existed historically.
I believe a Sir Robin strategy is only viable against an attempt at auto-victory by Japan, any other case it's simply a tactic to ensure an overwhelming advantage in 1943 and onwards.
When does Japan declare whether it is going for an auto-victory or not? It doesn't. Every Allied commander must assume that is what Japan is going for and prepare accordingly. Indeed Japan must go for the win and the Allies must aim to avoid it otherwise there is no imperative to fight for anywhere...... unless you have the overwhelming advantage you mention. VPs represent (imperfectly) the allies will to fight on. If Japan does not shoot for that goal then it defeats itself, without even the need for the Allies to get involved.
He only commits when he has pretty much every advantage and yet expects me to commit my forces when I clearly don't have an advantage, and considering I have to guess where he will actually stand and fight, why would I risk my forces as he certainly does not?
For the first 6 months at least you have the overwhelming advantage, no matter where you choose to take. You've got to use it to achieve strategic goals - isolate Australia by taking Noumea, Fiji, Line islands and south pacific. Invade India or East cost of Australia or Pearl, something that he will need to respond to. Taking the historical perimeter just does not do the job and is beneath Japans capabilities. You only need to read PZB thread to see what can be done with a well run Japan. If you haven't tried something significant you can't complain if he doesn't choose to fight you.
I should declare two interests in posting this. Firstly as a predominantly Japanese player this is what I do to a Sir Robin defence:
Other than 2 CVE's sunk shuttling to the front, no allied carriers have been involved in combat. Everything my opponent could pull out, he did (including sending the entire dutch airforce to Australia) . I just made sure he didn't get the breathing room to get an advantage from it. Noumea Fiji and the Pago Pago area are in Japanese hands (or shortly will be). India was invaded and evacuated, Nth Oz and the Aleutians are also Japanese. I have no problem with my opponent's strategy and I look forward to defending the Empire. Playing a conservative Japan is just not an option.
The second interest is that I was Yubari's opponent. In my first game as the Allies, it is true I defended deep because I know what Japan is capable of and I was expecting him to play Japan as it needs to be. My bad, I guess. Everything stopped around June. Despite the fact I was still out-numbered and out-classed I started taking back territory (Aleutians) in Sept 42 - well before I should have, simply for something to do.
Hi Yakface,
Your views are always welcome. I guess I just see things differently. Nothing you or any Allied player says will change my personal opinion on employing a Sir Robin. I just don't think it should be utilized to the detriment of the game. This was both our first game of WITP AE as I understand it. I do not know if Smeulders ever played WITP or UV before. I have never played WITP or UV.
I've already admitted that with more experience and recognizing what a Sir Robin entails I'd have done things completely differently. I don't have to like my current situation as it's kind of late to do anything about it, or like my opponents choice of strategy.
Was your game PDU on or off by the way? If off, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I don't think a Japanese player can achieve anything close to those kinds of numbers limited with an LBA largely made up of Sonia's, Nate's and Oscar Ic's until well into 1943 with PDU off.
I stand by my previous statements that I could have advanced as far as you suggested and my opponent still would have turtled, he'd have not lost as many aircraft or ships simply for the fact no matter how far I'd have pushed he'd have withdrawn them out of harm's way. If he did and I achieved some kind of auto-victory I'd feel nothing but cheated.
The point is to have fun..right? Well, I simply lost interest in taking undefended bases for months and having no naval action as a result of my opponents strategy. Yes, I could have invaded Northern Australia, yes I could have invaded India or Ceylon, yes I could have invaded the Southeast Pacific. My argument is that I believe my opponent would still have employed the same strategy and guess what...it's boring. Some people may enjoy a game taking empty bases and playing "find the Allied navy in a haystack" until you get crushed later, I don't. It's as simple as that for me.
I admit I've done a disservice to myself in being the major reason the game is boring for me, on the other hand, I think this game is exactly how my opponent hoped it would go because he has done absolutely nothing on his end to change the flow of it either. His offensive in Burma speaks volumes about his aversion to losing ships and aircraft. If there were hard targets for me to go after I'd be out there fighting, but there aren't except in every major Allied port with tons of AA and CAP, 1000's of miles from my support. Using KB for port raids to try and find Allied ships to sink is asking for trouble not to mention wasting valuable pilots for absolutely no strategic impact and nothing short of stupid. That's why Pearl Harbor type attacks happen...once.
There are tons of Allied players out there that fight from day one and are no worse off in the game than had they not and have a blast doing it. Look at how many Japanese players push for offensives against far flung strategically insignificant Allied bases in early/mid 1942 and get crushed leading to an early defeat and a meaningless game experience. Not every player is a Canoerebel, Adm. Spruance, Q-Ball, PzB or yourself that can pull it off, so to not play the player and simply rely on a tried and true strategy to me is the ultimate sign of poor play and gamemanship.
Ultimately, I thought this game would be different. One example is Fletcher's and Cantona's AAR. Cantona is not employing a Sir Robin against Fletcher who clearly stated he wasn't going to play an ahistorical game and was planning on sticking to what Japan set out to do in the war historically give or take a little and with PDU off. So Cantona knows he's not facing the spectre of a Japanese Auto-Victory, does he turtle and Sir Robin...no. Cantona is making that game enjoyable, he's raiding, counterattacking and looks to be having fun, he's not just withdrawing everywhere and sitting back to swamp his foe later. Fletcher is able to respond as Cantona provides something for him to strike against. I may not be pushing Smeulders as I should have, but he could be doing a heck of a lot more himself to make a game of this as well and more importantly make me WANT to push him.
Respectfully,
Joseph
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
I was probably a little harsh in my first message for which I apologise. BTW I should at this point say that you deserve respect for your wilingness to stick with a game that, whatever the rights and wrongs, is not turning out as you had hoped. Good on you.
There is less right and wrong here than I may have given the impression. Fundamentally I see it as a mismatch of expectation. As with my game - He expected me to contest his preimeter, I expected him to contest mine and the two perimeters didn't cross. Smeulders could equally be sitting there begging for you to do something (as I was) and bemoaning the slow pace of the game, becuase you stopped advancing whilst still being far more powerful than the Allies.
The reason I would focus more on Japan in this situation is because the onus is on Japan as they have they have all the early war advantages. Japan has to use them before they become obsolete.
As you suggest, one of necessities when playing Japan is to assess how your opponent's approach and then to be flexible in your response (to a certain extent this is true for both sides, but more so for Japan becuase of the initiative)
If Allies are contesting from the beginning then destroy him there before moving on. If he is running, follow up judiciously until he is obliged to fight or lose vital areas/on auto victory. How far to push and what is 'judiciously' provides much of the games interest.
The allied side responds well to careful play, Japan has to be more of a gambler - not reckless but willing to accept the risks necessary to break down careful play. The Allies a justified in waiting simply becuase they are only going to get stronger, japan must use what she has got before the advantage shifts.
That game is with PDU's on, but the result is built on carrier aircraft and then netties + A6M and Ki 43's to secure the areas taken. Army bombers have seen almost no action.
PDU's cut both ways. The allied player loses a bunch of P38 E's and F's when they are withdrawn from commands restricted to the US. Basically US has short range fighters until spring 43 when limited numbers of P38G's arrive. A lot of the Allied units are stuck with P39's and 400's well into 43
However that is an assumption that, by stopping, you have made entirely moot. I constructed a red line - bases that I would throw everything into defending, even if out numbered/outclassed. Smeulders may be doing the same. If you don't cross the red line then there is no way of telling whether he will fight for it or not.
If Smeulders really did keep the Allied carriers in port for the whole game, then yes he would IMO be being far too negative. I don't think you can know that is where they have been just becuase you haven't seen them. For the first 6 months of my game I kept them around Noumea and Fiji expecting attacks there. THey weren't spotted simply becuase my opponent didn't go anywhere near these places.
At the very least you would have been able to declare victory on Jan 1st 43, thank him for the game and bow out. He'd only have himself to blame.
I agree that blind port raids are not percentage play. KB is best used to suppress and isolate bases you are going to take and for suprise raids into his shipping lane.
This example supports precisely what I am saying. Fletcher has announced (in effect) that he is not going for the auto-victory. That allows the Allies can be far more aggressive becuase they don't have to defend bases that are off Japan's menu. However this is by far the minority of games.
Regards James
There is less right and wrong here than I may have given the impression. Fundamentally I see it as a mismatch of expectation. As with my game - He expected me to contest his preimeter, I expected him to contest mine and the two perimeters didn't cross. Smeulders could equally be sitting there begging for you to do something (as I was) and bemoaning the slow pace of the game, becuase you stopped advancing whilst still being far more powerful than the Allies.
The reason I would focus more on Japan in this situation is because the onus is on Japan as they have they have all the early war advantages. Japan has to use them before they become obsolete.
I've already admitted that with more experience and recognizing what a Sir Robin entails I'd have done things completely differently.
As you suggest, one of necessities when playing Japan is to assess how your opponent's approach and then to be flexible in your response (to a certain extent this is true for both sides, but more so for Japan becuase of the initiative)
If Allies are contesting from the beginning then destroy him there before moving on. If he is running, follow up judiciously until he is obliged to fight or lose vital areas/on auto victory. How far to push and what is 'judiciously' provides much of the games interest.
The allied side responds well to careful play, Japan has to be more of a gambler - not reckless but willing to accept the risks necessary to break down careful play. The Allies a justified in waiting simply becuase they are only going to get stronger, japan must use what she has got before the advantage shifts.
Was your game PDU on or off by the way? If off, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I don't think a Japanese player can achieve anything close to those kinds of numbers limited with an LBA largely made up of Sonia's, Nate's and Oscar Ic's until well into 1943 with PDU off.
That game is with PDU's on, but the result is built on carrier aircraft and then netties + A6M and Ki 43's to secure the areas taken. Army bombers have seen almost no action.
PDU's cut both ways. The allied player loses a bunch of P38 E's and F's when they are withdrawn from commands restricted to the US. Basically US has short range fighters until spring 43 when limited numbers of P38G's arrive. A lot of the Allied units are stuck with P39's and 400's well into 43
I stand by my previous statements that I could have advanced as far as you suggested and my opponent still would have turtled,
Yes, I could have invaded Northern Australia, yes I could have invaded India or Ceylon, yes I could have invaded the Southeast Pacific. My argument is that I believe my opponent would still have employed the same strategy.
However that is an assumption that, by stopping, you have made entirely moot. I constructed a red line - bases that I would throw everything into defending, even if out numbered/outclassed. Smeulders may be doing the same. If you don't cross the red line then there is no way of telling whether he will fight for it or not.
If Smeulders really did keep the Allied carriers in port for the whole game, then yes he would IMO be being far too negative. I don't think you can know that is where they have been just becuase you haven't seen them. For the first 6 months of my game I kept them around Noumea and Fiji expecting attacks there. THey weren't spotted simply becuase my opponent didn't go anywhere near these places.
If he did and I achieved some kind of auto-victory I'd feel nothing but cheated.
At the very least you would have been able to declare victory on Jan 1st 43, thank him for the game and bow out. He'd only have himself to blame.
Using KB for port raids to try and find Allied ships to sink is asking for trouble not to mention wasting valuable pilots for absolutely no strategic impact and nothing short of stupid.
I agree that blind port raids are not percentage play. KB is best used to suppress and isolate bases you are going to take and for suprise raids into his shipping lane.
One example is Fletcher's and Cantona's AAR. Cantona is not employing a Sir Robin against Fletcher who clearly stated he wasn't going to play an ahistorical game and was planning on sticking to what Japan set out to do in the war
This example supports precisely what I am saying. Fletcher has announced (in effect) that he is not going for the auto-victory. That allows the Allies can be far more aggressive becuase they don't have to defend bases that are off Japan's menu. However this is by far the minority of games.
Regards James
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
Guys,
Thanks for posting this interesting and lively discussion. [&o]
To relative newbies like myself it's been an invaluable insight into the different approaches and options available to players of different skill levels and temperaments. When I first joined the forum I didn't know exactly what a 'Sir Robin' was but quickly picked up the jist of it reading through various threads. The current debate takes that understanding further forward and provides a lot of food for thought before embarking on a new game.
Regards
Thanks for posting this interesting and lively discussion. [&o]
To relative newbies like myself it's been an invaluable insight into the different approaches and options available to players of different skill levels and temperaments. When I first joined the forum I didn't know exactly what a 'Sir Robin' was but quickly picked up the jist of it reading through various threads. The current debate takes that understanding further forward and provides a lot of food for thought before embarking on a new game.
Regards
The most advanced nations are always those who navigate the most -
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
I do hope this is seen as a discussion and not a rant. As you say Yakface there is no right or wrong here, it's just unfortunate the game has developed as it has. I deleted my comments referring to how Smeulders may be feeling about the game, as truly I have no idea, but if I was to guess he's probably feeling much along the same lines as I am.
A note on his carriers, I believe they had sortied to support his invasion of Baker Island as I remember seeing reports of carrier aircraft.
Anyway, you are right, I'll never know where his line in the sand was and you are also right in that I was premature in stopping to look for it and it is indeed now a moot point. The game is what it is. It just well may come down to us both expecting different approaches from each other and neither one willing to give in for the sake of making the game interesting...stubborn? It hurt me more than him in game terms, but I'm sure there's been little satisfaction on his end as well.
I'm laughing though as I'm getting more posts now after saying I wasn't going to update the AAR anymore. [:D] I just had to vent my feelings and if anything I thank people for being a sounding board.
I do look forward to my next game though. I'll be much more prepared for adapting and understanding the strategy to employ against whatever kind of opponent I may face. Again, thanks for the comments and differing viewpoints. Boy, I'd rather be in a pub discussing this, but...
A note on his carriers, I believe they had sortied to support his invasion of Baker Island as I remember seeing reports of carrier aircraft.
Anyway, you are right, I'll never know where his line in the sand was and you are also right in that I was premature in stopping to look for it and it is indeed now a moot point. The game is what it is. It just well may come down to us both expecting different approaches from each other and neither one willing to give in for the sake of making the game interesting...stubborn? It hurt me more than him in game terms, but I'm sure there's been little satisfaction on his end as well.
I'm laughing though as I'm getting more posts now after saying I wasn't going to update the AAR anymore. [:D] I just had to vent my feelings and if anything I thank people for being a sounding board.
I do look forward to my next game though. I'll be much more prepared for adapting and understanding the strategy to employ against whatever kind of opponent I may face. Again, thanks for the comments and differing viewpoints. Boy, I'd rather be in a pub discussing this, but...
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
Tactical Question
Burma:
An Allied force of 22 units is moving on Mandalay from Shwebo. I'm putting the Allied force at +/- 2500AV. My defenders at Mandalay consists of +/- 1300 AV behind level 3 forts. I have a further +/- 900 AV two days march away. What I fear is a paratroop drop on Mandalay to halve my defending AV.
I'd like opinions from more experienced players. First off will 1300 AV be enough to hold a river line behind level 3 forts if paratroops are deployed?
Would it be better to rush my 900 AV to reinforce Mandalay and have my entire force of +/- 2200 possibly halved during the assault if paratroops are used, or hope to hold the river line and arrive with my 900 fresh undisrupted AV after the initial assault to counterattack?
My first instinct is to try and hold the river line with the current force and then counterattack with my fresh reinforcing AV added to that of the defenders. I need Mandalay to hold for the initial river assault for this to work or it won't matter. I just worry that if I commit my entire reserves that my entire AV will be halved if paratroops are used and will compromise my entire defence if the assault is succesful. Personally I think a 50% reduction in defenders AV from a Bn. or Rgt. of paratroops is way too high a penalty for the defenders, especially when we are talking 50k worth of defending troops.
The other option, withdraw from Mandalay and counterattack with my entire army once the Allied force has crossed the river and taken the base while using my own paratroops during the counterattack if the Allies have used theirs initially.
I don't believe this compromises OpSec of Smeulders's operation. This is the situation I'm faced with and I believe he will use paratroops to get an advantage over my defenders. I'd like to get some opinions on what you think the best defensive option is.
Thanks in advance.
An Allied force of 22 units is moving on Mandalay from Shwebo. I'm putting the Allied force at +/- 2500AV. My defenders at Mandalay consists of +/- 1300 AV behind level 3 forts. I have a further +/- 900 AV two days march away. What I fear is a paratroop drop on Mandalay to halve my defending AV.
I'd like opinions from more experienced players. First off will 1300 AV be enough to hold a river line behind level 3 forts if paratroops are deployed?
Would it be better to rush my 900 AV to reinforce Mandalay and have my entire force of +/- 2200 possibly halved during the assault if paratroops are used, or hope to hold the river line and arrive with my 900 fresh undisrupted AV after the initial assault to counterattack?
My first instinct is to try and hold the river line with the current force and then counterattack with my fresh reinforcing AV added to that of the defenders. I need Mandalay to hold for the initial river assault for this to work or it won't matter. I just worry that if I commit my entire reserves that my entire AV will be halved if paratroops are used and will compromise my entire defence if the assault is succesful. Personally I think a 50% reduction in defenders AV from a Bn. or Rgt. of paratroops is way too high a penalty for the defenders, especially when we are talking 50k worth of defending troops.
The other option, withdraw from Mandalay and counterattack with my entire army once the Allied force has crossed the river and taken the base while using my own paratroops during the counterattack if the Allies have used theirs initially.
I don't believe this compromises OpSec of Smeulders's operation. This is the situation I'm faced with and I believe he will use paratroops to get an advantage over my defenders. I'd like to get some opinions on what you think the best defensive option is.
Thanks in advance.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
RE: A slightly different viewpoint after a good nights sleep.
ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
I do hope this is seen as a discussion and not a rant. As you say Yakface there is no right or wrong here, it's just unfortunate the game has developed as it has. I deleted my comments referring to how Smeulders may be feeling about the game, as truly I have no idea, but if I was to guess he's probably feeling much along the same lines as I am.
A note on his carriers, I believe they had sortied to support his invasion of Baker Island as I remember seeing reports of carrier aircraft.
Anyway, you are right, I'll never know where his line in the sand was and you are also right in that I was premature in stopping to look for it and it is indeed now a moot point. The game is what it is. It just well may come down to us both expecting different approaches from each other and neither one willing to give in for the sake of making the game interesting...stubborn? It hurt me more than him in game terms, but I'm sure there's been little satisfaction on his end as well.
I'm laughing though as I'm getting more posts now after saying I wasn't going to update the AAR anymore. [:D] I just had to vent my feelings and if anything I thank people for being a sounding board.
I do look forward to my next game though. I'll be much more prepared for adapting and understanding the strategy to employ against whatever kind of opponent I may face. Again, thanks for the comments and differing viewpoints. Boy, I'd rather be in a pub discussing this, but...
Well, if you are planning to be in the vicinity of London or the south east any time why not pm me?
The most advanced nations are always those who navigate the most -
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
RE: Tactical Question
I'd like opinions from more experienced players. First off will 1300 AV be enough to hold a river line behind level 3 forts if paratroops are deployed?
For how long will 1300 AV be able to hold? is probably a better question. Certainly you will be fine on the turn he crosses the river - paras or no paras. However, I notice you are not contesting the air over Burma. Once his bombers get going your land units will suffer massive fatigue and disruption and additional casulaties.
His air superiority will also put paid to plan B I'm afraid. Just moving will be a problem (as soon as a unit in 'move' mode is attacked it will change to combat and so move at half speed - slower if fatigue and disruption is high.
If you intend to contest Burma, the first thing you will have to do is flood it with fighters, to fight off his bombers, and your own bombers, to do to his ground forces some of what he will be doing to you. This all assumes you have bases with developed airfields and the base forces to support the air force.
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
RE: Tactical Question
ORIGINAL: Yakface
If you intend to contest Burma, the first thing you will have to do is flood it with fighters, to fight off his bombers, and your own bombers, to do to his ground forces some of what he will be doing to you. This all assumes you have bases with developed airfields and the base forces to support the air force.
My fighter units were pulled back to regroup and recover. I will throw everything I have over Mandalay as I'll be fighting over my own bases this time around. I have two Sentai's that have upgraded to Tojo IIa's, but sadly only 30 airframes have reached the front at the moment.
I'm redeploying bomber units in the DEI to Burma as well. My air support capacity is in good shape, if the size of my airfields leave something to be desired. I should be able to start causing some losses to his sweeps even if I don't get to the bombers. I will be hitting his exposed troops hard as I learned a long time ago the dirsuption bombing in open terrain causes and the switch from move to combat mode. I've been doing that all game long and thankfully it's something my opponent has not utilized at this stage. Essentially I'm redirecting a ton of aircraft to Burma and trying to get the Tojo numbers up to be my air hammer. they'll be manned by my best pilots.
I also have 700 AV almost at Moulmein for the rail journey to the front. I don't want to defend in open terrain, I just want to blunt his first attempt to cross the river, hopefully cause a withdrawal and perhaps I can push on back towards Katha and get in the rough terrain again. I'm withdrawing from Bhamo to hold at Lashio, Taung Gyi is another strongpoint to be held as long as possible, I want him to be forced to operate in the clear terrain as long as possible.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
RE: Tactical Question
If you are up against significant numbers of 4E then you will neede the help of the IJN, even with Tojo IIa's. A6M's have cannons, Tojo's only have 12.7mm MG's. Against bombers cannons are a big advantage. The Tojo will be an excellent air superiority fighter.
If you can keep control of the air - stop your units being bombed effectively and bomb the Allied ground units, I'd say you can keep Mandalay indefinitely.
If you are about even - he bombs you as much as you bomb him, then it will be too close to call.
If he manages to bomb your units at will.....Mandalay won't last long.
If you can keep control of the air - stop your units being bombed effectively and bomb the Allied ground units, I'd say you can keep Mandalay indefinitely.
If you are about even - he bombs you as much as you bomb him, then it will be too close to call.
If he manages to bomb your units at will.....Mandalay won't last long.
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
RE: Tactical Question
Thanks for the feedback Yakface.
I figure I can commit 5 Oscar Sentai's, 2 Tojo Sentai's, 1 Nick Sentai and 2 1/2 of Zero's one of which includes the A6M3. I will do my best with these units. Luckily I have large plane pools and will be restarting production of both Zero's and Oscar's to keep my numbers up. Pilot reserves are great.
I have a further reserve of two army divisions in the DEI, but I hope to not have to move them at this time. The components of both the 1st and 2nd Tank divisions are en route from China so I will have these two divisions recombined as soon as possible, at least all the tank Rgt.'s are already in Burma.
I'll post a screenshot of Burma and the total forces available to me and their dispositions later. So much for not updating the AAR! [:D]
I figure I can commit 5 Oscar Sentai's, 2 Tojo Sentai's, 1 Nick Sentai and 2 1/2 of Zero's one of which includes the A6M3. I will do my best with these units. Luckily I have large plane pools and will be restarting production of both Zero's and Oscar's to keep my numbers up. Pilot reserves are great.
I have a further reserve of two army divisions in the DEI, but I hope to not have to move them at this time. The components of both the 1st and 2nd Tank divisions are en route from China so I will have these two divisions recombined as soon as possible, at least all the tank Rgt.'s are already in Burma.
I'll post a screenshot of Burma and the total forces available to me and their dispositions later. So much for not updating the AAR! [:D]
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
Tracker Question
I've been trying to organize my defensive arrangements and was looking at JAAF AF BN and units in particular. I've discovered that almost all of them have no radar while the JNAF ones do. Is there a way in tracker to find out what LCU's get in terms of upgrades and when? I haven't dug deeply yet and noticed a TOE up menu...is that it? I've looked at a few ENG. AF units and I see they are supposed to get radar at some point, just can't figure out when. I obviously want to get my radar equipped units to the front to enhance the air defences. Thanks in advance.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
RE: Tracker Question
Radar device production is VERY slow .... check your pools, my experience is that you likely don't have any.
Pax
RE: Tracker Question
Hey, I understand you've been frustrated of late, but I hope you'll at least keep updating this AAR from time to time. I've read the whole thing over the last couple days and picked up some good stuff RE: Japanese production and especially operations in China. Not many players give much credence to this theater so I've really been enjoying an AAR that gives it full treatment.
-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
RE: Tracker Question
Thanks for the comments Pax and aaffins. I'll be updating shortly on events in the game, especially China, as there's been a major development which has unhinged the entire Chinese MLR in the South and forced a withdrawal from Hengyang and area leaving Chansha ripe for capture as the Chinese fall back to new positions.
Pax, I haven't had a chance to check out my radar device pools, but I suspect you are right. I'm hoping to get the proper units in place with radar soon and pull back units that need to upgrade.
Pax, I haven't had a chance to check out my radar device pools, but I suspect you are right. I'm hoping to get the proper units in place with radar soon and pull back units that need to upgrade.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
-
ny59giants
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Tracker Question
I was able to get my radar to upgrade by allowing the unit (large AA Rgt and certain BFs) to be in a base with over 20k in supply and Replacement On. Of course, there had to be radar devices in the pool. You can check on them by clicking on "Intelligence."
Here is what mine shows my in early Sept 42 (scenario 2).
Here is what mine shows my in early Sept 42 (scenario 2).
- Attachments
-
- Radar.jpg (102.99 KiB) Viewed 215 times
[center]
[/center]
[/center]-
SqzMyLemon
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
- Location: Alberta, Canada
Southern China
I'll start by posting current screenshots to get things back up to speed in China and Burma. I'll highlight the major events that have occurred since the Sept. 21 update in text form. I'm going to switch from the day to day updates and concentrate more on the strategic side of things and go into more detail about my current operations and plans, or lack thereof. Troop deployments, economic updates and trying to understand the nuances of the game that I may have glossed over up till this point.
There is a lot going on in the background of the Empire as I redeploy LCU's and air units into more favourable defensive positions. I'm trying to streamline production once again and get my units upgraded with new equipment and aircraft. Projected Tojo production is set to 125 a month with the current rate at 79(46). I desperately need this fighter to challenge the Allies in Burma.
Looking back I've fallen into what Nemo often criticizes that many players do. I had a preconception of how limiting PDU off was and never really attempted to utilize the assets I had in meaningful ways to enhance my overall position. I'll be trying very hard to maximise the effective use of what I do have and strike at the Allies in more direct ways in the future. Right now though, the priority is push in China, stabilize Burma and get my units into position to strike hard and effectively at the Allies as they start to advance. I have no overall defensive plan at the moment besides fortifying and getting bases built up with enough support units in place to effectively respond to any Allied thrust, in any theatre, in a timely/decisive manner.
Production wise I think I'm in good shape. I'm now producing a surplus of 5000 HI points a day, gotten my naval yard points pool down to 16k and will be able to reduce the naval yards once the Musashi is completed in 41 days. Fuel levels in the Home Islands have just surpassed 4 million while oil is still at 1.7 million. Resources have topped 12 million and supply is holding steady at 3.5 million. More economy and production numbers in another update.
First off, here's the first screen of Southern China where there have been major developments causing a very fluid theatre at the moment.
Southern China Oct. 7/42:
There is a lot going on in the background of the Empire as I redeploy LCU's and air units into more favourable defensive positions. I'm trying to streamline production once again and get my units upgraded with new equipment and aircraft. Projected Tojo production is set to 125 a month with the current rate at 79(46). I desperately need this fighter to challenge the Allies in Burma.
Looking back I've fallen into what Nemo often criticizes that many players do. I had a preconception of how limiting PDU off was and never really attempted to utilize the assets I had in meaningful ways to enhance my overall position. I'll be trying very hard to maximise the effective use of what I do have and strike at the Allies in more direct ways in the future. Right now though, the priority is push in China, stabilize Burma and get my units into position to strike hard and effectively at the Allies as they start to advance. I have no overall defensive plan at the moment besides fortifying and getting bases built up with enough support units in place to effectively respond to any Allied thrust, in any theatre, in a timely/decisive manner.
Production wise I think I'm in good shape. I'm now producing a surplus of 5000 HI points a day, gotten my naval yard points pool down to 16k and will be able to reduce the naval yards once the Musashi is completed in 41 days. Fuel levels in the Home Islands have just surpassed 4 million while oil is still at 1.7 million. Resources have topped 12 million and supply is holding steady at 3.5 million. More economy and production numbers in another update.
First off, here's the first screen of Southern China where there have been major developments causing a very fluid theatre at the moment.
Southern China Oct. 7/42:
- Attachments
-
- SouthernChina.jpg (304.78 KiB) Viewed 215 times
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
-
Chickenboy
- Posts: 24648
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
RE: Southern China
Your situation in China for October 1942 looks remarkably familiar. A very similar map to where I was in my longest PBEM at that time. With a couple notable exceptions.
Changsa is ripe for the picking and should probably be prioritized for you. I like your positioning SW of Siangtan. If you capture this key town (in open terrain, naturally), he'll either have to reinforce Changsa, evacuate it or lose the lot. Once Siangtan falls, you can move that force to the NE and cut the road hex from the North and Changteh. He's a sizeable force building there, so be prepared for a massive stack counterattack in the forested hex to the NE of Siangtan if you take it.
As for Changsa, I would look upon this opportunity to isolate it before it can be reinforced further. I'd also recommend putting some troops in there to muck with his ability to produce supplies from Changsa's LI / resources, regardless whether you can pull off an attack at this time.
If you need supplies close to their demand in and around Changsa, have you considered xAKL delivery to Hankow / Wuchang? They'll sail all the way up there from the home islands, FWIW. It makes a nice resupply mission straight to the heart of the matter.
Just a bit of caution is warranted. You've some laudable territorial goals in this theatre, but this (forest terrain) is prime defensive territory. Combined with city hex fortifications, it is inevitable that your exploits slow for you. I'd concentrate on investing and eventually capturing Changsha and administering as severe a punishment on anything in a clear terrain hex (or on the move through one) that you can.
I enjoy your maps very much!
Changsa is ripe for the picking and should probably be prioritized for you. I like your positioning SW of Siangtan. If you capture this key town (in open terrain, naturally), he'll either have to reinforce Changsa, evacuate it or lose the lot. Once Siangtan falls, you can move that force to the NE and cut the road hex from the North and Changteh. He's a sizeable force building there, so be prepared for a massive stack counterattack in the forested hex to the NE of Siangtan if you take it.
As for Changsa, I would look upon this opportunity to isolate it before it can be reinforced further. I'd also recommend putting some troops in there to muck with his ability to produce supplies from Changsa's LI / resources, regardless whether you can pull off an attack at this time.
If you need supplies close to their demand in and around Changsa, have you considered xAKL delivery to Hankow / Wuchang? They'll sail all the way up there from the home islands, FWIW. It makes a nice resupply mission straight to the heart of the matter.
Just a bit of caution is warranted. You've some laudable territorial goals in this theatre, but this (forest terrain) is prime defensive territory. Combined with city hex fortifications, it is inevitable that your exploits slow for you. I'd concentrate on investing and eventually capturing Changsha and administering as severe a punishment on anything in a clear terrain hex (or on the move through one) that you can.
I enjoy your maps very much!
