The First Team: Take Two!

[Canoerebel]

John and Q-Ball have played well; and what they've done in India is good, though not a knockout punch.
 
By the way, how far ARE you guys from auto-victory?  Is it still possible?
 
 

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John and Q-Ball have played well; and what they've done in India is good, though not a knockout punch.

By the way, how far ARE you guys from auto-victory?  Is it still possible?

It's 4.3 to 1 at the moment. We still have all the USAFFEE troops surrounded at Manila and Bataan, which would be a bunch of points we could draw on, and Manila is worth alot to Allies; haven't been in a hurry there, we needed the troops for India.

All depends on what the Allies take back or not before the turn. We can rack up points expanding airbases in India and NZ, which doesn't help if they change hands.

PS, I can't look of course, but is their AAR live again? It would be nice if it was.

[Canoerebel]

I think there has been one post indicating that their AAR will be resurrected, but nothing yet.
 
The India campaign started with the strategic objective of trying for an auto-victory and the more operational objective of cutting off and destroying Allied troops.  You guys have a shot...

[John 3rd]

Dan--Here is what you requested earlier.

Stopped off at home while running errands and did a quick screenshot.

[Nemo121]

Enhance your calm Sir.

I'm calm. Posting something you don't like doesn't mean that the other person isn't calm and I dislike the impugnation and the fact that you would make it.

The problem with our India attack was the division of our troops into 3 EQUAL-sized attack groups.

I know, I was the person who pointed this out to you in this thread. - Post 489 in this thread in which I said " I think your problem is that your central position has invited you to dissipate your forces. Since the defender is always stronger this dissipation of your forces actually serves the defender FAR better than you. "

The problem in the break-out---JUST LIKE COBRA---is that it was on the wrong flank.

No, the problem was that your team, when you had the initiative, didn't WEIGHT your forces in order to decide which flank you would break out on. Consequently you broke out on the flank the enemy could most afford you to break out on ( and thus had committed less force to ). The problem was that you left it to chance instead of utilising the initiative to decide on the shape the battlefield would take.

I offer this in the spirit of inviting analysis of your mistakes so that you improve and play better next time which is all any of us can ever hope to do. Hell, I'm finding errors in my game vs Damian every turn and trying to learn from them.

Instead we had a Brittany-like diversion of badly needed troops to clear out Madras, Trivandrum, Mandalore, Bangalore, and Pangrim.

You didn't have it. You decided on it. It wasn't a passive thing which was pre-determined it was a thing you decided upon. I'm trying to give you the hint here that your locus of control is internal not external and that yo don't just have things happen to you but, rather, can impact HOW they unfold. This is true for life as well as games.

Didn't even occur to me that we should do that. It was a serious mistake that we are now paying for.

This raises two questions:
1. Did you read other AARs where India was taken? I ask becase when I invaded India vs 2nd ACR my whole gameplan was based on iolating the enemy main force in Calcutta by driving north-east toward Delhi from Trivandrum and taking Bombay and Karachi on the cheap ( since the rail net was cut by the troops making for Delhi ).

2. I and others counselled for the race to Bombay to occur. I don't see why it couldn't have occurred to you when others were urging it openly and/or privately.

I refer again to post 489 in which I said

I think your priority right now must be to dislocate the enemy line to your west such that you can re-orient your centre of mass and drive in a north-eastward direction.

The advice was there approximately one month ago, in plenty of time to prevent the transfer to Bombay which now stymies you. North-east from where you were then was, obviously, Delhi.


I think your following post is interesting and actualy the nub of the issue.

Operationally and tactically I think you and QBall are playing good games BUT strategically you are engaging in mission creep, unclear objectives which invite mission creep and a failure to decisively concentrate force in order to control the future shape of the battlefield.

In short you are in the position of a ships crew who are letting the wind blow them hither and thither while the powerful onboard motor remains unused. If you played as well strategically as you do operationally and tactically India would be yours.

It's clear Bombay is pretty key, but we can't do anything about it until we have airbases, which are under construction. We have plenty of planes to swamp them, just no platforms to launch from. Once we do, we should be able to turn it into rubble.

So, even with Zeroes with a range of 10 to 11 hexes you have NO Level 2 airfields from which you can launch sweeps? I find that hard to believe. If you can't do what you want ( 1000 planes etc ) then surely there must be something you can do with smaller numbers from fewer fields? You don't have the luxury of time to build those fields. You need to hit with what you have now, even if it appears too little.

[Canoerebel]

Allies only suffer strategic losses in Australia and USA, as far as I know.
 
 

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Allies only suffer strategic losses in Australia and USA, as far as I know.

The answer to John's question on Strategic Losses: I acheived ONE Resource hit at Perth from a Betty raid, remember? A good hit though. I may do that again.

[Canoerebel]

Nemo, this is a game and you're coming on way to strong; then, when they reply equally strong, you suddenly "resent the impugnation."  These guys are sinking hours and hours into a game; they realize they aren't perfect, but they are entitled to enjoy themselves without folks weighing in with countless pages of hyper-analysis and criticism.  You'd make an excellent drill sergeant or football coach, but a poor teacher. Back down a bit (IMHO).

[John 3rd]

We're OK.  Nemo--Dan isn't used to your style or way of saying things but it does come across as Dan just described.  I've had nearly a year of you pointing out everything and have somewhat gotten used to it.  I've learned a lot but it takes a semi-thick skin to hear it (over and over).

As to the strategic loss points...that cannot be because of Australia can it?  I never remember gaining any strategic points when I was moving through Aussieland in Forlorn Hopes.  It must be from India I think! 

Does anyone know the which way this question falls?

[Nemo121]

2 points:

1. I've always said... If someone doesn't want to hear it then just ask me to stop and I will.


2. I don't post to most threads here because most people play and do moderately well and get congratulated moderately but when people start deluding themselves in their analysis then I think it is worth stepping in.


I'll take it though that neither QBall, John3rd or Canoerebel care for the analysis ( which is perfectly fine ) and I'm not about to post things which they can't see as being constructive. That's cool, I don't want to waste anyone's time with feedback they don't like. Life's way too short [8D]


Canoerebel - My issue is not with them disagreeing with me ( that's cool and a part of good debate ) BUT, rather, having an emotional state tagged onto an analysis which isn't warranted. If they disagree with me then that's good as it'll foster debate and get them thinking. Assigning motivations and emotions to me beyond trying to give good feedback is a different matter though.

As to being a good drill sergeant. LOL!!! In medicine someone who can't take a good objective analysis of where they went wrong, why and how they can improve is going to kill a lot of patients during his training. What I engage in here is only a scintilla compared to what occurs in medical training here in Ireland. It is objective, ruthless and utterly focussed on turning out good doctors who give you the best chance of surviving when you present... but I do realise that in the modern world it is rare to be in a career in which objective, harsh assessment by others ( and of yourself by oneself ) is common. Its a pity, it definitely turns out better doctors than wrapping them in wool and telling them they're wonderful no matter how many patients they kill.


Strategic Losses:
Oz and CONUSA. When the game was designed Japanese assaults into other regions weren't really taken into account in the coding.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

We're OK.  Nemo--Dan isn't used to your style or way of saying things but it does come across as Dan just described.  I've had nearly a year of you pointing out everything and have somewhat gotten used to it.  I've learned a lot but it takes a semi-thick skin to hear it (over and over).

As to the strategic loss points...that cannot be because of Australia can it?  I never remember gaining any strategic points when I was moving through Aussieland in Forlorn Hopes.  It must be from India I think! 

Does anyone know the which way this question falls?

No strat points for India; you do get strat points for BOMBING Australian industry/resources/etc. You don't (apparently) get them for just taking bases in Australia. (Had I known that the Japs could get strategic points in Australia in my game with John, I would've had a heart attack. A case of "ignorance is bliss').

[Canoerebel]

Nemo, I enjoy reading your analysis and you're welcome to post in my AARs.  But you can get overly critical.  This is a game, not the life-and-death-on-the-line medical school.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As to the strategic loss points...that cannot be because of Australia can it?  I never remember gaining any strategic points when I was moving through Aussieland in Forlorn Hopes.  It must be from India I think! 

Does anyone know the which way this question falls?

You get points for bombing industry in Australia. You could have flattened the industry in Australia and racked up points. TAKING it doesn't get you points, just destroying it.

Too bad, maybe you would have auto-victoried.

[ny59giants]

I would say that Nemo is practicing a little "Reality Therapy." Yes, that is an actual form of therapy and often something I use when dealing with teenagers (and John [:D]). Considering the different pace of this game when it comes to naval vs land warfare, it is a difficult mindset to shift effectively from one to another. Its like a good chess player, having to think multiple moved ahead when it come to land combat (includes movement).

Nemo reminds me of my immediate supervisor when I first started working with teenagers - very direct, but very supportive. It took me some time to get use to him, but now when we talk it is something I find very helpful. Nemo can come over to my new AAR and offer whatever advice he wants. I actually ask for it most of the time. 

[Nemo121]

Ah, william Glasser. Reality therapy it was but, obviously, for such therapy to work people need to be receptive. Better to abandon the therapy rather than ruin the possibility for the next therapist to foster a therapeutic relationship using a different modality which might be more acceptable. I'm sure you understand my point here precisely.

P.s. I saw your AAR. Most impressive achievements I must say. I would have posted but felt that it would be trite given how well things were going. I'll re-examine now though.

[John 3rd]

This, as opposed, to how POORLY we are doing here!  [:'(]

I have no issue with things it simply drives me nuts when you belabor a point and heartily enjoy reminding us with "I told you so."  Can handle that but when it is said repeatedly it gets rather tedious.  You KNOW I like, want, and encourage the advice.  It just goes a bit too far at times. 

By any real standard of play what Brad and I have done is amazing.  This has been accomplished by having a strategic plan at the onset of the war.  We have achieved everything we wanted and done so at little cost.  I note that the largest ship we had lost is a light cruiser.  We have done well; however, it hasn't been perfect.  This is where some analysis comes in for future reference and critique.

Having two Therapists (three if you include Nemo) tends to drive one a bit more loopy then 'normal.'  At least I have one I trust (Michael), one I respect (Nemo), and one I hate (Ken).  Maybe this means there is some form of Therapist 'balance' in my life!  

[Nemo121]

I'm not here in my role as a therapist ( although I do obviously use whatever minor psychological insights I might garner to inform my play and thought ). So, you have two therapists and another guy you'll never meet who offers some thoughts in an effort to present a different viewpoint and bring things back to objective reality from time to time. MY comments should be given no more weight than such an ephemeral and distant "position" warrants.


I would also point out, again not relating to your AAR ( as I won't comment on it in future - not out of spite but because when comments aren't felt to be helpful then it isn't helpful to make comments. That's true in both my job and private life. ), that my saying Mike is doing well does not carry any obverse impugnation of your play. I can say he does well without implying you are doing poorly. Him doing well ( or poorly ) has no impact on your game. You and Mike aren't in a zero sum game in which one doing well necessitates the other doing poorly. I feel it is a pity that you would assume I might imply such a link.

As to my "enjoying" telling you "I told you so". No, I wanted to help you see an issue relating to a gap in your thinking which I can track in both AARs and which negatively impacts your play. I was seeking to be helpful to you based on my belief that what matters is not whether one plays well or badly in this game but that one plays better in the next game. Also, any ego satisfaction I require I get from areas other than belittling of others through snide and opaque means on the internet. If there was belabouring of the point then it was done because you weren't "getting" the point I was trying to make and not because I was "enjoying" belittling you. I was trying to help you see a strategic error you were making which arises out of a persistent cognitive style ( disregarding as undoable that which you CHOOSE not to do --- or, as I like to think of it "The Ardennes Flaw") I can see in your two ongoing AARs. That, to me, is not something which is associated with either positive or negative emotions. I don't feel good or bad about saying that, it just is. And, of course, I may be utterly wrong and have completely erroneously assessed the situation.

And to re-iterate. You've done well but I just thought that it might be possible to highlight a flaw I've noted in both AARs in order to help you play even better next time. That was all. No more, no less and with no game-related subtext.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'm not here in my role as a therapist ( although I do obviously use whatever minor psychological insights I might garner to inform my play and thought ). So, you have two therapists and another guy you'll never meet who offers some thoughts in an effort to present a different viewpoint and bring things back to objective reality from time to time. MY comments should be given no more weight than such an ephemeral and distant "position" warrants.


I would also point out, again not relating to your AAR ( as I won't comment on it in future - not out of spite but because when comments aren't felt to be helpful then it isn't helpful to make comments. That's true in both my job and private life. ), that my saying Mike is doing well does not carry any obverse impugnation of your play. I can say he does well without implying you are doing poorly. Him doing well ( or poorly ) has no impact on your game. You and Mike aren't in a zero sum game in which one doing well necessitates the other doing poorly. I feel it is a pity that you would assume I might imply such a link.

As to my "enjoying" telling you "I told you so". No, I wanted to help you see an issue relating to a gap in your thinking which I can track in both AARs and which negatively impacts your play. I was seeking to be helpful to you based on my belief that what matters is not whether one plays well or badly in this game but that one plays better in the next game. Also, any ego satisfaction I require I get from areas other than belittling of others through snide and opaque means on the internet. If there was belabouring of the point then it was done because you weren't "getting" the point I was trying to make and not because I was "enjoying" belittling you. I was trying to help you see a strategic error you were making which arises out of a persistent cognitive style ( disregarding as undoable that which you CHOOSE not to do --- or, as I like to think of it "The Ardennes Flaw") I can see in your two ongoing AARs. That, to me, is not something which is associated with either positive or negative emotions. I don't feel good or bad about saying that, it just is. And, of course, I may be utterly wrong and have completely erroneously assessed the situation.

And to re-iterate. You've done well but I just thought that it might be possible to highlight a flaw I've noted in both AARs in order to help you play even better next time. That was all. No more, no less and with no game-related subtext.

Now I have to say that this note truly got to me in a good way! Perhaps this tone works with me therapeutically...

I LOVE "the Ardennes Flaw." It is entirely true and I can admit that without any issue. Keep in mind that my partner (who has remained MUTE nearly the whole day) and I have settled upon this strategy together. Perhaps we both suffer from this new mental illness!

Thank You Nemo. That was instructive.

[Rainer79]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Once you have Bombay you should be able to use Bettys and CVEs and CVLs basing frmo Bombay to prevent resupply from Aden. If the Allies only get 6,000 tons of supplies per month as auto-supply then you should be able to starve them out with ground bombardments and airstrikes over the course of many months.

Does anybody know if the auto-resources Bombay gets also produce supplies like normal resource centers? If that is the case then the Allies get a total of 12.000 tons supply / month at each location which will make starving them harder.

Also is there any indication that the Allies are shipping in supplies from Aden? Considering the current situation they should be trying to get as much transferred as possible before multiple lvl. 4 AFs make this suicidal.

[John 3rd]

Good Question.

There is a lot of activity moving through there and our SS have been doing quite well.  Only problem is that the Brits have excellent ASW and we have been losing SS.  We have an economic update in a few dates so I'll detail the SS--ASW Action a bit more.  This is the first game that I have actually kept specific, written track of each Subs sinkings.

We actually have a Submarine ACE!  I-153 has sunk 5 AK and damaged a 6th!  Her crew has all been promoted an extra rank and get a liberal bonus in their Sake rations!

The auto-supply issue SUCKS.  We'll see what happens...