Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jackyo123

Agreed, its tough to understand -

however, you knew you were in a highly risky position - your quote :

"I’m still deciding what to do. I really hate to leave KB out there much longer – I’m going to lose some carriers if I do, I think. And those cursed PT boats are still wandering around somewhere. But it might still be worth the risk, if I can retake Ambon. Decisions, decisions…"


Did you hang around Ambon for an additional turn after you posted that? Or did you immediately retire at full speed?

Either way, I think its a bad result, and the PT routines - both for the PT skippers and the reaction to PT's - needs some tweaking. But IIRC 3 PT boats succeeded in deflecting a bombardment force off of Henderson Field that consisted of heavy cruisers and battleships - a feat that Wright's much stronger force lost about 5 ships trying to do several nights earlier - so PT boats in a near-coastal hex can have some unpredictable consequences.

The retreat routines are definitely weak - ive seen merchies fleeing deep into enemy waters when a sub is encountered - the ai routines for this need improvement. Normally it shouldnt have cost you as heavily, but it was a dicey position those carriers were in.

I hope you can recover from this! This is definitely one of the best AAR's right now. Have learned a ton from reading it.

A thought occurred - if you guys decide it was a semi borked turn - you could do a redo, but 'sacrifice' two of your carriers. Disband the planes while out to sea (so the planes/pilots dont return to pools) and send 2 unescorted carriers to their deaths. That would help alleviate the loss, while at the same time preserving the game and giving a reasonable 'punishment' for the exposed carriers.

good luck with it!

I ordered my carriers to retire immediately after posting that. As for a redo, I'm inclined to say no. As you pointed out, I knew the risks were there. I think there are times when doing a turn over may be justified but I really don't think this is one of them.

ORIGINAL: princep01

It is a very nice AAR and an equally interesting game, but there will be no recovery for Japan from this disaster. The Allies had already wrested the strategic initiative from Japan. That occurred in October when the initial landings in the Timor area were successful. This battle swung the tactical initiative to the Allies. Japan is now fully on the defensive and will likely lose access to the DEI oil within 6 months. If Luzon should fall earlier, then the oil pipeline is essentially severed and Japanese industry will wither shortly thereafter.

Cuttlefish can make a good game of it and continue writing his interesting narratives, but this one is over. The Allies will claim victory in late 44 if not earlier. It would be interesting to watch cuttlefish fight for his surrogate country's life. I am sure he will make a stellar game of it. But this one is in the can.

This is a grim assessment. Grim, but accurate.

There comes a point in every game where the Japanese player realizes that the turning point has been reached and that the Allies cannot now be stopped, only hindered. I prefer it when this turning point comes later in the game, but oh well. Time to dig in and keep fighting.

Here is a screenie showing the current position, immediately after the battle, with some explanation of the moves that occured:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish


I ordered my carriers to retire immediately after posting that. As for a redo, I'm inclined to say no. As you pointed out, I knew the risks were there. I think there are times when doing a turn over may be justified but I really don't think this is one of them.

Agreed. However, your opponent has shown such a high degree of sportsmanship in this game that he might insist on it ;>

And no one likes to see an ai issue cost you so heavily.

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Here is a screenie showing the current position, immediately after the battle, with some explanation of the moves that occured:

Hi Cuttlefish

About Kibo Butai retreat I would like to know more data if possible:
KB Carrier TF has retreat option selected ? if not, KB has non retreat, then.. have they reaction move selected, how much hexes ? could they react to launch air strikes against enemy TF near <8 hexes after retreat from PT combat ?.. if not, then the turn shall be redone because the retreat routine must go to rearguard and not retreat to close to enemy carrier TFs....
I think only is a fair outcome if you have patrol/do not retreat option with a reaction option selected in your KB TF...If you have retreat option selected, how much hexes to react did you select ? could be interesting to know to clarify what happened !

Best of wishes and good luck !, I am an enthusiastic reader of your/Q-Ball AARs.
Fletcher

bump

Hey,

Pretty much the same message for both AARs - my first comments on any AAR.  This one has been great!  I think the fortunes of war sometimes go awry, BUT I doubt any competent commander would have retreated their carrier force into an area that would likely become a deathtrap the next morning.  EDIT: I think that any illogical suicidal moves (due to the game engine) need to be reconsidered, IF the net result unbalances the game forward. END EDIT

Regards


VVV

i see where your coming from but did the carrier commander actually know it was going to be a death trap? i thought the allied carriers were still missing

Not that hard to imagine a story where the Japanese commander decided to go the direction he did. Maybe a false sighting of a major allied surface TF between Ceram and Namlea? There were Japanese BBs there, and Allied BBs had been in the area recently. A mistaken search report (reinforced by the PT boat attack) would lead the CV commander to conclude that the straights were too dangerous to attempt, and he sought to go around.

Or .... remember that the Japanese CVs just trashed two allied CVLs earlier. A sighting of additional vulnerable Allied targets to the South might have been too irresistable to the Japanese CV commander, even though he had orders to retire. Keep in mind historical commanders sometimes disobeyed pretty clear orders to go and do something else. Halsey had clear orders to protect the Taffeys and landings at Leyte, but against orders he went off chasing Ozawa's decoy force. One can imagine the same happening here - CV commander has orders to retire, but instead goes for the glory of a final strike against what he thought was an unprotected convoy...

If Q-Ball proposes a replay, I'd go for it. He's a nice opponent, this kind of things happened in PzB and Andy's game for WitP too - didn't kill the game, only made it more interesting. I can understand Q-Ball may have the feeling that his victory got stolen by a AI glitch, and that he wants to do this kind of job by himself&nbsp;[;)]

I think the whole replay discussion is worthless.
&nbsp;
Cuttlefish, you did a bold move. It was well planned (to the extent of your intel and the limited time available) but it contained some very real risks.
CV´s running into TB´s is really bad luck, on the other hand this risk was severy increased by your CV positioning deep
in confined contested waters.
Congrats on the plan, cudos to you having bad luck. Time to move on and cause a series of major headaches for Q-ball. [;)]
&nbsp;
Great story this war, from&nbsp;both of you. [&o]&nbsp;

Agree with LoBaron, I don't think a replay is warranted. You gambled, you lost. That's why they call it gambling.

Well I don't expect my dice to get off the table, fall on the ground, and bounce back two hexa... hum... on the table when Im gambling, but I guess we don't gamble at the same games&nbsp;[;)]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

Agree with LoBaron, I don't think a replay is warranted. You gambled, you lost. That's why they call it gambling.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Well I don't expect my dice to get off the table, fall on the ground, and bounce back two hexa... hum... on the table when Im gambling, but I guess we don't gamble at the same games [;)]

[:D] LOL I agree with both of you.

Id like to think that we can plan everything in advance, notice every possibility or option, know the statistically most probable reaction in every situation
and see it as the high art of gaming. But sometimes we can´t calculate everything, and then its the fine art of gambling.

What would have happend if

there was 4 TF CV not 1 TF with 4 CV

Is it possible they had retreat into different hexes?

[font="Arial"]To them that flee comes neither power nor glory.[/font]
- Homer: The Iliad

---

1/14/1943

Q-Ball has returned from his trip and the game has resumed. British surface ships and U.S. carrier strikes hunted down and sank everything that was too damaged or slow to get away from the waters around Ambon. The butcher’s bill in this case consisted of battleship Hiei, heavy cruisers Tone, Chikuma, and Suzuya, and three destroyers.

On the plus side all of the troop convoys got well clear, as did the remaining two carrier task forces. The carriers will return to Japan for refit and repair. One division of troops will be deposited at Davao while the other two will go to reinforce the Pacific. I am going to bring one division, plus maybe a couple of regiments, out of China to reinforce Java and other points around the DEI.

I’ll do a round-up soon showing how my defenses shape up, since it looks as though they are going to be tested sooner now rather than later…

From the Mailbag: I appreciate all the comments about recent events in the game. To answer some specifics:

Fletcher: all three carrier task forces were set to do not retire, mission speed, reaction range 2. There was no reaction towards the Allied carriers; the task force that retreated fought from the position it retreated to following the PT boat encounter.

Krupp: the position of the main enemy carrier force was not in fact known prior to the turn. That said, the massed carriers had spent the previous day fending off heavy air attacks from Ambon, Lautem, Koepang, and even Darwin, so a third of my carriers remaining in the area could not have been regarded as a good idea.

Fishbed, LoBaron, et al: Q-Ball and I did not discuss redoing the turn. I think the result I got is towards the far end of the bad luck spectrum but nonetheless within the range of possible outcomes. As supreme commander of the Imperial Japanese forces I accept responsibility for the disaster. I am not, however, going to apologize to the Emperor in the traditional way. That would be taking the game a little too seriously.

Good attitude Cuttlefish. It was bad luck, wouldn't happen again if you replayed the turn a dozen times but, hell, most of history wouldn't happen again if your replayed it [8D]. Its a game, take it with equanimity and now face the challenge of fighting a stubborn delaying action. There will be plenty of opportunity for skill there...

Kuddos Cuttlefish! bring it on!

I've read in other threads where you don't want to give conflicting orders to a TF. When a TF is given a Remain on Station order it will ignore the reaction setting. The reaction setting, the way I understand it, depends on the leader to react to or away from the threat. I don't know if this would have impacted the retreat from the PT boats though.

Ouch. Finally caught up to this AAR and the latest entries are tough for JFBs everywhere.

I respect not re-playing this but the retreat in this case was non-sensical and disastrous, IHMO. That said, the risk of operating in the DEI is the close quarters.

I have read numerous AE AARs as I gear up to seek an opponent for my first AE PBEM. It seems to me that 60% of the Allied High Commands, and almost 100% of the AHQs led by the best players, seek to strike Timor as the first major Allied offensive. JFBs should in my opinion conclude the DEI conquest with either the conquest of NW Oz or by immediately turning Timor into a defensive bastion.

One thought - do you think the large commitment of troops to Noumea, while ultimately successful in that op, left the door open for the Timor invasion?