Notes from a Small Island

[Canoerebel]

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.

I agree with you with another point, you have to play the game the way that you are comfortable playing. I saw that when you invaded Sumatra in another game and was given advice to jump over to the Malaya peninsula. You did that but weren't comfortable with it and it did not work out for you. At that time, I was not following your AAR but I did later.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Hitching on Loka's post, but to CR.

He knows both sides; I don't. But, in our game, when I left in December 1944 he sent he his save to look at. It's been months, but I recall him having about 1500 Frank -r in the pools. That was on the high side of models, but he had a LOT of fighters. (obvert took over the game, so there's no OPSEC here.) They're SR3, but I was never going to shoot them down. My pools were worse than yours are.

I think you can strat bomb his aircraft industry. You persist, however, in trying daylight pinpoint raids, often without escort. He has massed fighters. The historical Japan did not. You can't do that in the game.

If you Manpower bomb, at night, and with altitudes that remove AA from the equation, I think you CAN hurt his air effort quite a bit. Fire destroys factories. It isn't choosy, so you can't be as precise as in daylight pinpoint, but you don't need to have great pilots to drop incendiaries either. He will have some night fighters, but he can't always guess right, or guess your altitudes. You will lose more B-29s than historical, but it doesn't have to be 40-50 per raid. And even if you burn up something else it's VPs.

You need fires. I'm not talking 20,000. I mean six figures. It can be done.

Bullwinkle has been advocating for a long time here that the Allied focus is misplaced. If the objective is to achieve an Allied Decisive Victory as determined by the game victory conditions, he is correct.

Any Allied player who is dependent on Soviet activation in order to decisively defeat Japan has adopted an approach which guarantees that at the very best they can only achieve a Marginal Victory and even that is most definitely not guaranteed. A Marginal Allied victory is far below the historical performance and nothing to crow about.

Here the Allies have only 6 months to accomplish an Auto Victory, which is the only way to gain a Decisive Victory. Look at the VPs disclosed in post #3168. As of that date even if Japan gained not a single extra VP in the next 6 months,, the Allies need to harvest more than 80k in VPs. That is more than 13k each month. In his last game against John III just how many months did Canoerebel achieve that quantum in a game where the Japanese position and resistance was no where as well placed as it is in this game to stymie Allied plans.

Any lawyer knows what the phrase "time is of the essence" means. It applies here. Only the big VP sources can lead to a Decisive Allied victory. Those sources are Strategic VPs and acquisition of prime Japanese real estate on Honshu. At this stage consistently achieving 2:1 in air kill VPs (due to 4E providing 2 VPs each a better ratio in down airframes is needed in order to get that VP air ratio) will not suffice to bridge the VP gap. Nor will naval battles achieve such a surplus sufficient to bridge the gap. Land victories even at a 4:1 destroyed device ratio are too small to bridge the VP gap.

Alfred

Emphasis mine.

[Canoerebel]

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call. I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

+1

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.



I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.

He may not be blaming the game, he just may be commenting on the current Japanese situation.

You are making judgements about his decisions, they were not wrong but they were different than what the decisions that you would have made without having all of the information that he had available.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.

He may not be blaming the game, he just may be commenting on the current Japanese situation.

You are making judgements about his decisions, they were not wrong but they were different than what the decisions that you would have made without having all of the information that he had available.

Nope. Nice try, but nope.

The Allies were behind on VP's. The Allied focus should have been on strategic bombing, followed by taking bases on Honshu.

The "you don't have all the information to judge" argument is weak and doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny. The only information needed is:

1. The VP situation.
2. Knowledge of the biggest VP piñata on the map (Hint: it starts with an H and ends with a U)

EDIT: This isn't an attempt at a "I told you so"; instead, what could have been done different to effect a more positive outcome for the Allies.

[RangerJoe]

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

Not having all of the information to judge is not weak, it is a fact. It does hold up to scrutiny. Any decision made must take into consideration all of the available assets and the counters to them. If there are not enough assets, you won't get the job done. Just ask the Japanese about Guadalcanal and the Germans on the Eastern Front in WWII.

[ChuckBerger]

mm, dude... you're spending a lot of electrons arguing that your strategy would have been better in somebody else's game. It's starting to sound like you don't have enough to do. Go learn to play the clarinet or something.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.

Not having all of the information to judge is not weak, it is a fact. It does hold up to scrutiny. Any decision made must take into consideration all of the available assets and the counters to them. If there are not enough assets, you won't get the job done. Just ask the Japanese about Guadalcanal and the Germans on the Eastern Front in WWII.

Again, no.

The facts are there - the land and naval TOE's for both sides are a known quantity.

I suggest you go and look at the Allied TOE for 1944 onwards.

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

mm, dude... you're spending a lot of electrons arguing that your strategy would have been better in somebody else's game. It's starting to sound like you don't have enough to do. Go learn to play the clarinet or something.

Thank you for your useful contribution to the discussion.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.

You can't bomb if you don't have the planes. If he were to have all of his 4Es destroyed for little gain and the pilots lost, that threat is then gone allowing the employment of the Japanese defences elsewhere.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.

You can't bomb if you don't have the planes. If he were to have all of his 4Es destroyed for little gain and the pilots lost, that threat is then gone allowing the employment of the Japanese defences elsewhere.

If there were zero planes.

That wasn't the case.

Post 4427 is a good refence point for the realisation.

[HansBolter]

Isn't this horse sufficiently dead yet?

[RangerJoe]

Why are you keeping on beating a dead horse? Why not let him play his game the way that he wants to and you play your your own way?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Isn't this horse sufficiently dead yet?

Apparently not .... [8|]

[Canoerebel]

2/2/46 and 2/3/46

Seeking Victory: The Allies take Pescadores and Muroran (the latter on Hokkaido). A decent 4EB raid on remnant industry at Nagasaki. Lots of enemy units evaporating at places like Sapporo and near Canton. And the Allies need just 5k to achieve auto victory.

Here's a reflective note I sent to Erik tonight:

Some of my thoughts – perhaps all of them – are common to each Allied player.

The game takes so long to play; the turns are complicated; the planning looks forward months; the implementation of plans after so much thought and time is gratifying; the map is lovely to look at; you never lose sight of the fact that the opponent might score a major victory next turn/next week/next month; so you always plan ahead, even as the game approaches some ending; so that you have ships and troops in transit, you have prep ongoing for places you doubt you’ll ever attack or invade; you’re positioning supply and ships and troops; you’re training pilots; you’re always looking ahead.

And suddenly the game ends with a ridiculously lame trumpet flourish. And it’s really a letdown. IT’s so much a letdown than you kind of limp along in your AAR, desultorily, hoping that perhaps a roused and supportive community will rally to your side and provoke intense analysis and lots of thinking….but generally that doesn’t happen.

And an awesome game fades away, just like an old soldier.

We’re about 5,000 points from AV, near as I can tell. You might score 7,000 points tomorrow or next week, to throw my calculations off. But there’s a decent chance the game will end in a week or two.

And it’ll be sad, for all these reasons (at least, that’s my fresh recollection from my games with Fabertong and John III). It’s been a lot of fun. In some ways it would be fun to really discuss the game. But in all likelihood we’ll just let it fade away.

But I sure have enjoyed myself. The way the Allies approached the game – the way I approached it – was shaped very much by might high regard for your abilities as a player....

Let’s see what happens. I’ll try to close it as quickly as possible. But I aint countin’ chickens yet.

[RangerJoe]

Very nice and thoughtful. [&o]

It reminds me of looking forward to a relocation for a job, then actually moving. Then when the job was over, what do you do next? The weather was not conducive to fishing. [:(] So I would wake up early, look at the clock, roll over and go back to sleep! [:D]