Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Whether winning by points or by occupying the HI is the right way to 'win' is entirely up to CR and John. We should feel honored they chose to share their adventure with us. But they made it all the way to 1945. In my book, they both win.

Darn straight. [&o]

The nuclear ASW is not specific to this mod but a "feature" of the game in general. Japans ASW ability is light years ahead of what they were capable in real life. The allies were pretty much able to sink the entire Japanese merchant fleet. Some of their failures were tactical, but mostly it was the lack of technical ability. The Japanese ASW is extreamly overpowered in the game. As to Japanese advantages in the game in particular? Could we compare the number of aircraft produced and the advanced research in this game against what additional aircraft and models the allies get? How many extra aircraft do the allies get over stock or real life? Same question for Japan. How far are the Allies able to advance key models? Same question for Japan.

"The Japanese ASW is extreamely overpowered in the game"

No quite so ,John DillWorth.

We are just not repeating the mistakes made by the Japanese, who basically screw up all they could with rescpect to ASW.

Check please for a reference this recent post
tm.asp?m=4357430

dealing with the issue, and in particular post n. 50 by InfiniteMonkey.

Countercheck with this two original document,

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... #contents1
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/d ... %20asw.pdf

one the Submarine Report by the US Hydrographic Institute, and the other by one of the top Japanese executive officers, produced in the Naval institute Proceedings of 1952.
The latter in particular is, to my taste, compelling and of flowing read.
The first, the Report, I believe constitute one of the main historical sources and references looked after by the Devs (and Gary Grigsby presumibly);

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Have to say I don't take kindly to your trashing him behind his back.

Yes, because no one that posts here ever 'trashes' John III elsewhere?

I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telling another side how they should view the endgame from your perspective is grounds for questioning their perspective on what a 'successful' campaign looks like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks there's any precedence for an Allied uber-general/admiral remaining in charge after losing an Army in an ill-fated early offensive is delusional. Countless were removed for far less. So, by my reckoning, Dan's version of command ended after that Army was liquidated. We're just playing on for the benefit of the game. Anyone that complains about unrealistic IJA/IJN cooperation after that is completely missing the picture.

I realize I'm likely to set off a fire storm here, but that has to be the most patently idiotic thing I have ever read.

By virtue of your twisted logic, Churchill would have had no moral authority to command after the fiasco in France, or getting chased across North Africa by Rommel.

Stalin would have had to abdicate following the summer of '41.

Furthermore, given this is a game and not the war, a player has no one to be replaced by after falling on his face and has no choice but to pick himself up and carry one, unless he wants to be like the majority of Japanese players who simply quit when their day in the sun ends.

They had a titanic struggle on Sumatra at a point in time when both sides were relatively evenly matched and John come out on top. However, that doesn't mean the Allied player should throw in the towel.

I would have lost all respect for him if he did.

Very sorry for hijacking here JIII.

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

"The Japanese ASW is extreamely overpowered in the game"

No quite so ,John DillWorth.

We are just not repeating the mistakes made by the Japanese, who basically screw up all they could with rescpect to ASW.

Check please for a reference this recent post
tm.asp?m=4357430

dealing with the issue, and in particular post n. 50 by InfiniteMonkey.

Countercheck with this two original document,

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... #contents1
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/d ... %20asw.pdf

one the Submarine Report by the US Hydrographic Institute, and the other by one of the top Japanese executive officers, produced in the Naval institute Proceedings of 1952.
The latter in particular is, to my taste, compelling and of flowing read.
The first, the Report, I believe constitute one of the main historical sources and references looked after by the Devs (and Gary Grigsby presumibly);

Yes, we all know that the game provides players opportunities to improve on history, at least for the Japanese side.

The Japanese side is free to improve on historical airframe production while the Allied side is strapped with historical production and replacement rates.

Please explain why the Americans are strapped with a historical dud rate they can't do ANYTHING to improve on, but the Japanese side is NOT strapped with historically shitty ASW they cannot improve upon.

The game is FULL of inequities favoring the Japanese side. It always has been.

Allied players accept it under the guise of "making the Japanese side playable".

Just for once I would like to see Japanese players acknowledge it.

I don't for one minute begrudge a Japanese player the ability to do better than historical if he invests the effort, but I deplore the manner in which the Allies are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Have to say I don't take kindly to your trashing him behind his back.

Yes, because no one that posts here ever 'trashes' John III elsewhere?

I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telling another side how they should view the endgame from your perspective is grounds for questioning their perspective on what a 'successful' campaign looks like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks there's any precedence for an Allied uber-general/admiral remaining in charge after losing an Army in an ill-fated early offensive is delusional. Countless were removed for far less. So, by my reckoning, Dan's version of command ended after that Army was liquidated. We're just playing on for the benefit of the game. Anyone that complains about unrealistic IJA/IJN cooperation after that is completely missing the picture.

I realize I'm likely to set off a fire storm here, but that has to be the most patently idiotic thing I have ever read.

By virtue of your twisted logic, Churchill would have had no moral authority to command after the fiasco in France, or getting chased across North Africa by Rommel.

Stalin would have had to abdicate following the summer of '41.

Furthermore, given this is a game and not the war, a player has no one to be replaced by after falling on his face and has no choice but to pick himself up and carry one, unless he wants to be like the majority of Japanese players who simply quit when their day in the sun ends.

They had a titanic struggle on Sumatra at a point in time when both sides were relatively evenly matched and John come out on top. However, that doesn't mean the Allied player should throw in the towel.

I would have lost all respect for him if he did.

Very sorry for hijacking here JIII.

Yes, John, I'm 'sorry' for hijacking too. Right up until the point where I'm not and I post anyways. [8|]

First off, let's knock off the schoolyard ad hominem nonsense. No need for it.

Churchill is an interesting example. How did he fare after the disaster of Gallipoli? After exposing the Allies to 500,000 casualties, he was demoted, left government and nominally headed a battalion on the Western front.

Yamamoto's prestige was seriously battered after the Midway disaster. His frittering away of the remaining IJNAF strength in the Solomons and failure to force the 'final battle' left him diminished in many eyes. Nominally, he was still in charge, but it's not hard to envision a scenario in which, had he not met his fate over Bougainville in 1943, he may have been sidelined.

Ghormley was removed from theater command for nebulous 'insufficient aggression' reasons. Richardson after the disaster at Pearl Harbor (in spite of his warnings about forward deployment of the fleet). What would have happened to the Nimitz/Halsey team had they A. lost Midway and B. lost Guadalcanal?

The conduct of the war and one's performance during the war relative to RL matters, IMO. An Allied victory by superior early war strategic and tactical disposition means more in my eyes than one that is a late war bull-headed rush attained by OOB surfeit. The point total may be the same, but the conduct of the war to that point does merit consideration in who was the 'victor' and by how much.

So in my mental calculus (your 'twisted logic'), Dan would likely have been removed from command following the Sumatra debacle. No, he didn't (and shouldn't have) quit the game. But it reduces any political cache' of any Allied victory significantly. There are several real life lesser errors that resulted in loss of command. The game will never remove someone from the uber-general/admiral position. But it's absolutely fair to judge one's conduct relative to RL and the likelihood of an outcome in the prevalent sociopolitical structure of the time.

I understand now and accept the difficulty you have divorcing the fantasy of game play from reality.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I understand now and accept the difficulty you have divorcing the fantasy of game play from reality.

Glad you're able to make that distinction. Have a nice day.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Just for once I would like to see Japanese players acknowledge it.

Egads man, I am constantly acknowledging it. There are many other JFBs that point to all the gifts Japan gets -- like Pax to mention one.

Your grievance doesn't hold up....or you are very selectively responding to posts. Or maybe Japan trashed you real good and you need to point the blame somewhere else.[:D][;)]

I think you protest too much, in short.

Sorry for the HiJack.

I understand the allied player frustrations about this game. But it is that a game. Why bitch at JIII for things that are out of his control. If you don't like something Mod it and change it, if it can be done.

I have followed JIII's mods. I have looked under the hood at what he has done. While doing my own mods (based off of JIII's). I have found that it is hard to keep a balance, especially if going for historical accuracy and plausibility. It is way to easy to accidently over power one side. From my own experience being an AFB, I have done this to the Allies multiple times in my mods. Then I have to find it out in game play or by luck. Some things have to be changed to make the game more playable for one side or the other. Try modding a game for people to play and have fun with. Its not easy.

My gripe at JIII is you say your subs are 12ins, they are only 11in. LOL

February 18, 1945

Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

Sweeps from the 1.0x10^6 John?

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Have to say I don't take kindly to your trashing him behind his back.

Yes, because no one that posts here ever 'trashes' John III elsewhere?

I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telling another side how they should view the endgame from your perspective is grounds for questioning their perspective on what a 'successful' campaign looks like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks there's any precedence for an Allied uber-general/admiral remaining in charge after losing an Army in an ill-fated early offensive is delusional. Countless were removed for far less. So, by my reckoning, Dan's version of command ended after that Army was liquidated. We're just playing on for the benefit of the game. Anyone that complains about unrealistic IJA/IJN cooperation after that is completely missing the picture.

Chickenboy has the right of it here.

Don't forget that when this campaign ended the first time I READ all of Dan's AAR. Things said there about me--personally--and about my style of play were so over-the-top and rude that Dan had to defend me several times. It was one of the contributing factors that led him to leave the game at that time. I just rolled my eyes and said that they could simply GO TO HE**.

People have gone after Dan in this thread and sometimes I have defended him just as he has me.

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

The nuclear ASW is not specific to this mod but a "feature" of the game in general. Japans ASW ability is light years ahead of what they were capable in real life. The allies were pretty much able to sink the entire Japanese merchant fleet. Some of their failures were tactical, but mostly it was the lack of technical ability. The Japanese ASW is extreamly overpowered in the game. As to Japanese advantages in the game in particular? Could we compare the number of aircraft produced and the advanced research in this game against what additional aircraft and models the allies get? How many extra aircraft do the allies get over stock or real life? Same question for Japan. How far are the Allies able to advance key models? Same question for Japan.

I take back my umbrage Sir and apologize. You are correct with your commentary here on this game point.

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Sorry for the HiJack.

I understand the allied player frustrations about this game. But it is that a game. Why bitch at JIII for things that are out of his control. If you don't like something Mod it and change it, if it can be done.

I have followed JIII's mods. I have looked under the hood at what he has done. While doing my own mods (based off of JIII's). I have found that it is hard to keep a balance, especially if going for historical accuracy and plausibility. It is way to easy to accidently over power one side. From my own experience being an AFB, I have done this to the Allies multiple times in my mods. Then I have to find it out in game play or by luck. Some things have to be changed to make the game more playable for one side or the other. Try modding a game for people to play and have fun with. Its not easy.

My gripe at JIII is you say your subs are 12ins, they are only 11in. LOL

Well said DOCUP. Trying to Mod things with an interest to improvement, 'what if', and maintaining some sort of balance is a bitch. This variant of RA is a prime example. As said MANY TIMES, RA 5.0 (from five years ago) swungthe pendulum way too far out for Japan. Michael and I went back to work to create something that stuck to the vision but sought redress. Think we have managed that spectacularly with BTS and BTSL.

I'll try to fix your SS complaint DOCUP. Damn. Can't make anyone happy! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

Sweeps from the 1.0x10^6 John?

YEP. The first squadron of Corsairs came in and were EATEN whole. I mean, seriously, scratch 26 F4U. No survivors...

YUMMY!

As to a thread hijack, I NEVER have an issue with that. As long as thing stay somewhat calm it is always good to explore an area of the game at any point.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

February 18, 1945

Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

about equal losses in platform numbers ..are you thinking these numbers are not sustainable? or is your point you still own the skies for a day?
Does this modification allow for the surrender of Germany in May and all the allied toys coming to this theater?

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I'll try to fix your SS complaint DOCUP. Damn. Can't make anyone happy! [:D]

Not to jump into a hijack, but I have made commentary in your mod thread. I like what you have done, and said so [;)] I seriously think making US torps reliable from the get-go would be a perfect balance. Japan focuses more on certain aspects, forcing the U.S. to focus more on their end, therefore discovering the torpedo issue long before it was done historically. Simple, plausible, and makes everyone happy (of course, I am an unabashed AFB [8D])

Anywho, back to the game!

John recently got a new resources book on the Japanese sub fleet. So, we will be revisiting subs in general in the months ahead. While I am a AFB, I do play as Japan. Maybe a class of American subs that get better torps earlier in the war. [;)]