Slitherine

quote:

Back to my question. If the same thing happens in Sydney as in Karachi, what actualy happens in Karachi.
Are reinforcements frozen or lost if on arrival date the base is out of allied hands?

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

No please, it's gamey...

If someone takes Tokio in '43, it that gamey?
Sorry, but I belive I outplayed my opponent in a fashion that is anything but gamey. I can't belive I'm defending myself, but here...I had 8(!) IJA divs preparing for Sydney 3 months doing nothing in the meantime. I invaded east India to conceal a major operation on the other side of the world. I lost 3 CVs (2 sunk) for the operation and went ahead anyway. I had to sail many days in hostile waters avoiding detection, and when i finally arrived my whole strategy could have been flawed by just 1 or 2 divs. C'mon man!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

...what happens with Australian reinforcements once Sydney is captured?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Exactly T.  Pauk's a dumbass

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

No please, it's gamey...

If someone takes Tokio in '43, it that gamey?
Sorry, but I belive I outplayed my opponent in a fashion that is anything but gamey. I can't belive I'm defending myself, but here...I had 8(!) IJA divs preparing for Sydney 3 months doing nothing in the meantime. I invaded east India to conceal a major operation on the other side of the world. I lost 3 CVs (2 sunk) for the operation and went ahead anyway. I had to sail many days in hostile waters avoiding detection, and when i finally arrived my whole strategy could have been flawed by just 1 or 2 divs. C'mon man!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

No please, it's gamey...

If someone takes Tokio in '43, it that gamey?
Sorry, but I belive I outplayed my opponent in a fashion that is anything but gamey. I can't belive I'm defending myself, but here...I had 8(!) IJA divs preparing for Sydney 3 months doing nothing in the meantime. I invaded east India to conceal a major operation on the other side of the world. I lost 3 CVs (2 sunk) for the operation and went ahead anyway. I had to sail many days in hostile waters avoiding detection, and when i finally arrived my whole strategy could have been flawed by just 1 or 2 divs. C'mon man!!!

If the Allies take Tokyo in '43 by sinking the KB, wiping out the bases in the way, and hitting with enough SUSTAINABLE (as in, keeping it supplied) force to take it because there is nothing to interfere with the flow of supplies - yes. If it is an attack in which those conditions are not met (KB active and afloat, Truk, Tarawa,Kwajalein, the Marianas, New Guinea, the PI still in Japanese hands and not menaced by much more than holding forces at best) and there is no defense in the HI to speak of - yes that is gamey because no one who was in command of a real force for any nation would leave themselves that exposed to the loss of a landing force because they were cut of and unsupplied.

If you drop 8 divisions out of the blue on Sydney, that would not conquer Australia. I would, undoubtedly garner attention for all the other cities in the country, and - unless you had taken New Caladonia, the NE coast of Australia, neutralized any air force which could interdict, and had no viable Naval Forces which could break your supply line (No CVs in particular), and had eliminated the sub threat, you would wind up with a large force, representing a substantial part of your nations capital investment, stranded and out of supply on an enemy held continent. The same with Karachi. If the Indian Subcontinent has been captured in the process, then good on you. If you jump to Karachi ignoring everything else and leave your rear, and both flanks open to any form of attack which can threaten your supply base (home) and your supply train then you are playing in a fashion which would have got you kicked out of any military training school in the world worth its salt. In other words, employing any game mechanic which is instituted to represent the rest of the world to win the game by what is obviously an artificial means is unsupportable in anything other than a misapplication of the mechanical practice of the game, and, IMO, unethical in the extreme.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

Am I speaking in some strange language? I didnt go for Karachi because of all the reasons above. But I don't see Sydney qualifying as such as it's not edge of the map area.
and BTW allies have lost 6 CVs, PH BBs n ot sunk but damaged, 30+ CA/CL sunk...again c'mon...And even if so much stuff wasn't sunk so what? It's my fault enemy isn't guarding is rear. I can't belive this...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

These arguments about taking Sydney or Karachi being gamey are all relevant to the players involved and should not be label as being gamey is ALL cases.

One thing this game does not reflect is the political aspect of the game. If the Japanese were able to take Karachi, would the British remain a presence in India? Maybe, maybe not. it never happened IRL, so who is to say? Britian might have felt that their foothold in India was too unstable and may have even started withdrawing troop, let alone contiue reinforements. Same thing with Australia. If ANY base was taken in Australia, then they might have negotiated peace with the Japanese and withdrawn from the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

If ANY base was taken in Australia, then they might have negotiated peace with the Japanese and withdrawn from the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dino



Aussies??? ... You've got to be kidding.

The way the game is now (accordin to the manual), Japan has to take (and hold) Sydney AND Melbourne to stop reinforcements in Australia.

My feeling is that they should add some more alternative ports of arrival (Brisbane, Perth...?) which would make this "gaminess" issue obsolete.

Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

...there is no gaminess...

quote:

there is no gaminess, if you want to keep those citys protect them (like it was done in real life).

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

there is no gaminess, if you want to keep those citys protect them (like it was done in real life).

Yes, it was well known that the Australians constantly were on the guard for 8 divisions surprise attacks from the sea from the Japanese and the huge sealift capacity...

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

there is no gaminess, if you want to keep those citys protect them (like it was done in real life).

Yes, it was well known that the Australians constantly were on the guard for 8 divisions surprise attacks from the sea from the Japanese and the huge sealift capacity...

I remember playing Third Reich once and the game ended after turn one...the Allied player invaded a beach in Northern Germany and was somehow able to occupy Berlin on the first turn...that was about twenty years ago so my memory of the incident is rather vague.

quote:

I would consider the move gamey if in order to accomplish the mission you by-passed Pt. Moresby, Rabaul and the Solomons....IRL no non-lunatic commander would insert a substantial force a thosand miles behind the "front" with tno supporting base and the prospect of reinforcement being slim.