Taking Brisbane or Nomea

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Post Reply
Deban
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 2:46 am

Taking Brisbane or Nomea

Post by Deban »

Has anyone ever taken one of these towns yet in PBEM?
And what would happen to the reinforcments that are supposed to arive at these places?
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

Post by Fred98 »

I could not imagine any Japanese player taking Brisbane. But Noumea is a possibility.

Not in the long scenario, but in some of the shorter scenarios, a strong Japanese carrier TF, could sneak down the right hand side of the map and assault Noumea.

It could only work if the Allied player left Noumea unprotected and moved all forces northward. It also requires a lack of LBA on the islands North and North East of Noumea.

Whilst all this is going on, the Allies are probably attacking somewhere else, so what you gain on the roundabout you lose on the swing.

And I am not a gamey player anyhow.
User avatar
Luskan
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Down Under

not clear

Post by Luskan »

How is taking Noumea or Brisbane gamey??
In a real war it would have been a killer-blow if pulled off correctly!
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?ImageImage
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

Post by Fred98 »

Taking Brisbane is not gamey, just not possible against a half competent player.

And anyhow, Brisbane is filled with Queensland beer - yuck!

Using a map edge is gamey. Specificially the right hand map edge.
Mojo
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Post by Mojo »

Originally posted by Joe 98
...
Using a map edge is gamey. Specificially the right hand map edge.
I've tried using the left hand map edge but my ships move so slow;)
If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom
Deban
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 2:46 am

Post by Deban »

But IF the Japs do take one of those bases what happens
to the reinforcements that are due to arrive thier?
User avatar
Ross Moorhouse
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Ross Moorhouse »

This word gamey. sheesh.. It seems to be that people always want balanced battles. But in war the 2 sides didnt meet first and do a head count to make sure that both sides are equal.

Also the Australian War Memorial's latest issue of their magazine has an article that proves that the Japs had no plans to invade Australia at all. They lead the Allies to believe that they wanted to invade to get the USA to divert some of their forces away from the fighting to defend Australia.

So back to the topic.. If someone can yake Brisbane go for it. Tell us how you did it too. :D
Ross Moorhouse
Image
Project Manager
www.csosimtek.com
Email: rossm@csogroup.org
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

To Brisbane or not Brisbane

Post by mogami »

Greetings. For me Brisbane has no appeal. My main goal is to secure Lunga. To this end I try to capture Port Moresby to protect my supply line and flanks. Then I use everything in the Solomons (minus the barest of force to hold PM/NG-force the allied to mount a major operation to regain) If the plan works the allies will be busy in the Solomons and not able to fight in 2 places at once. I don't think the Aussie bases should be worth auto victory (I don't have a problem with the game making them auto victory I only mean I don't think in the actual event capturing one of them would have been of value but would likely have led to disaster for any Japanese land unit commited.
The operation for me is Lunga and bases to the east (Santa Cruz and Espirtu Santo)
I am trying to simplify my supply problem not increase it beyond limits. Supply of a land campaign in Australia boggles my mind. I don't consider it gamey. If my Japanese opponents want to try it thats their bussiness. I just do not believe it is sound.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Vital spots

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Port Moresby and Lunga. If IJN/IJA capture and develop defenses around these two puppies...game over or at worst a draw.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
XG76
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:55 pm

RE: Vital spots

Post by XG76 »

so, years after release and taking into consideration tons of experience: did anyone ever acomplished that feat successfully and (auto-?) shut down (or not...) the game by seizing N or B?
Any battle report regarding this appreciated...

Ralf
wissooner
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 11:52 pm
Location: Norman, OK

RE: Vital spots

Post by wissooner »

nope, closest I ever came was an auto-victory at Rockhampton...............................Ken
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4900
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Vital spots

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

I tried N and failed. Sank my opponent's carriers for no losses on my side and took PM as well, so could concentrate on Noumea. Occupied all of New Caledonia except Noumea rather easily, then built up the small air bases to provide CAP etc., but couldn't achieve air superiority despite carrier strikes and surface bombardments on Noumea. Although Noumea was cut-off by air and surface blockade, reinforcements and supplies continue to arrive directly in the base, so there is no way to starve the base into submission. Wasn't able to amass enough forces to take Noumea, and eventually his reinforcements outnumbered my forces on land and in the air. Got bombed, bombed and bombed again, eventually losing most of transports, then most of my planes due to lack of supplies, then most of my warships (trying to evacuate the remnants of my Army) due to lack of air cover.  [/align]It was probably an error to leave Luganville and Efate in Allied hands, which provided bases for heavy bombers which harrassed my convois and bombed my airfields. But taking those bases first would have meant even more time for Allied reinforcements to arrive, and would have weakened my own attack force for the main target. The entire ops was a bloody affair for both sides, but the Allies only won thanks to unrealistic supply and reinforcement availability. But it was great fun!
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: Vital spots

Post by tocaff »

Luganville is probably the only realistic auto victory target for the Japanese player.  The question is when to move on it?  If you give the Allied player enough time he will take the base back before '43 rolls around so it's a delicate move that must be a hammer blow accepting very heavy loses.  Noumea, gulp and Brisbane is a base to far.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Vital spots

Post by spence »

I took Noumea at the beginning of July (just a turn or two ahead of the arrival of 1 Mar Div) in Scen 19 (I think).  It was a near run thing though.  My opp surrendered at that point (since he and I at least believe no further naval reinforcements can arrive until Noumea is Allied friendly). 
 
If I remember correctly my opp aggressively moved part of the Americal Div up to Lunga early on and that weakened the defenses at Noumea to where to where I could overcome them.  If the Marines (the regiments) had landed I know my Army would have been stalemated and then I would have been way overextended.  Even Luganville is probably an overextension for the Japanese.  Twice as Allies I've lost it in the early going and then "bombed my way back" before 1 Jan 43.
(I think the real kicker is the overlooked requirement that the Japanese must have twice the required supply in the place at that time:  pretty sure I actually recaptured Luganville on about the 10th of Jan in one game; just had the garrison eating their boots for sustenance on 1 Jan by bombing the place constantly).
User avatar
marky
Posts: 5777
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Wisconsin

RE:

Post by marky »

ORIGINAL: Ross Moorhouse

This word gamey. sheesh.. It seems to be that people always want balanced battles. But in war the 2 sides didnt meet first and do a head count to make sure that both sides are equal.

well said!

the whole point of war is to make it an unequal fight. the whole point is to get the other guy in a bad spot and keep shooting and stabbing and strafging and bombing till hes dead!

period [:)]

if people dont wanna play like that then they shouldnt play wargames ya know?

yes its a game, but its a WAR game

User avatar
marky
Posts: 5777
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Wisconsin

RE: RE:

Post by marky »

but i do remember that someone invaded australia, but took heavy losses. as well i remember that someone DID once take Noumea, also with heavy losses, so it CAN be done, but its deffinitely not easy.
User avatar
UV Player
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:48 am

RE: RE:

Post by UV Player »

It is very posibile that marky will be able to talk more about one of these strategies. [:)]
User avatar
marky
Posts: 5777
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Wisconsin

RE: RE:

Post by marky »

Once, i took Rabaul, and in another game i took Kavieng, i cant remember whether it was UV or WITP tho, and i cant remember how many losses, but it was only against the AI[:'(]
User avatar
marky
Posts: 5777
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Wisconsin

RE: RE:

Post by marky »

as for Truk ? dont even think about it, its way too heavily defended

if u wanna invade truk or ponape, which can be a good bomber base for hitting truk, or brisbane, ya gotta get WITP

while UV is still and will be a great game, there are so many better options for control in WITP [:)]
HMSWarspite
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: RE:

Post by HMSWarspite »

ORIGINAL: marky
ORIGINAL: Ross Moorhouse

This word gamey. sheesh.. It seems to be that people always want balanced battles. But in war the 2 sides didnt meet first and do a head count to make sure that both sides are equal.

well said!

the whole point of war is to make it an unequal fight. the whole point is to get the other guy in a bad spot and keep shooting and stabbing and strafging and bombing till hes dead!

period [:)]

if people dont wanna play like that then they shouldnt play wargames ya know?

yes its a game, but its a WAR game


You two are both missing the point of 'gamey'. It is nothing to do with playing fair, or having a fair fight (in the RL arena). Gamey exploits are those that exploit weaknesses in the game design to achieve results that should not be achieveable. The issue with map edges is they do not exist in RL. Creeping down a map edge, because the game design does not allow adequate recce of that hex row, when in RL, forces off board, or traffic across the board edge would spot it, is gamey. Reloading games until you get the result you want is gamey (if not cheating) even against the AI. Exploiting game mechanics, and doing things that totally disregard RL constraints (for instance, the classic end of game victory point rush - although not so much in UV - knowing the opponent doesn't have another turn to respond) is gamey.

Best of luck on the most uneven, unfair vicious ambush you can manage, so long as you don't exploit weaknesses in the game to achieve it!
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”