Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

Historiker, do you really think John's suffering unfairly to LBA in India? He has hundreds of mostly unguarded merchant ships within a hex to about six hexes of hundreds of highly experienced bombers. In this situation in real life, the Japanese transports would be shredded, I think. So, I believe these results are plausible, and that John should have known that if he moved into close range of Allied LBA and failed to adequately guard his ships he would take fearful losses.

In difference to Nemo, I see this as exploiting the game.
Its nothing to complain about when your experienced bombers devastade his fleet - but IMO, it should be in an acceptable way. For me, using naval search isn't acceptable, but everyone may regard that his way.

If your bombers are that experienced, what's the problem with unleashing them with the usual naval strike mission?
On the other hand, most games have a house rule regarding the altitude 4Es have to fly doing naval attack. This rule can easily be bypassed by letting them fly naval search with lower altitude. I don't know about how you handle this in your game...

Anyway: I never try to forget that its just a game and that both sides should enjoy it...

quote:


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have no first hand experience with the Naval Search vs. CAP issue, yet, but from what I've read, John is under the impression that Naval Search is not affected by CAP. Does anyone know for sure which is true?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.

My bomber groups are always set on 10% naval search; none are or ever have been set higher. If in his AAR John is implying or giving the impression that my bombers are set higher, please let him know that isn't the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Well said, Q-Ball.  I've said once before that John is almost like a brother now, and the intensity is almost like brotherly competition.  Alot goes into a game, so tensions are high, but while I'm intense with my brother, it doesn't change the fact that he's my brother and a good man.

I've had a problems with a few things John has done in the game:  His misleading statement early in the game about China (referenced on the previous page of this AAR), although this could fall within the defination of psych-ops; the time he trapped all my merchant ships in a corner of the map and bombed them unmercifully (in real life, those merchants would have just proceeded further south), but getting them stuck there was my own fault, so I never complained to John;  and the time he swapped all his Nav fighters for some other kind of fighter, sent me the turn, and then asked for a redo when he learned through his AAR that those fighters might not even fly (I felt that once he sent the turn it should've been a done deal, but I ultimately agreed to let him go back a few turns and start over).

I don't mind John pulling troops out of China, swapping out strike aircraft for fighters (the massive CAP trap he set for me near Hokkaido), swapping out dive bombers for torpedo bombers, using LBA on ASW search and destroy missions, allowing small garrisons to remain in DEI and Philippines so that he could train pilots, or any other number of strategems.  Most or all of these, I felt, fell within the area of "what if."  The Japs didn't try them in real life, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have.  It's a game, so it's all about the challenge of using assets to try to devise a way to defeat your enemy.

(I did mind when there were questions about me having foreknowlege of John's invasion, but I think that was put to rest early on).

quote:

I can't imagine anybody would doubt my word about this, but just in case anybody does wonder, here's an offer. John can send any (or all) of my turn files over the past seven game days to anyone of his choosing and I'll then send that person my password. They can open the file and check naval settings and confirm that they are all at 10% Naval Search. Since the turn files are coming from John and will come from several days back, there won't be any questions of my having tampered with them after the fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwinkle, very well said.  I agree, although the root of the problem in my opinion is that he should have hit Sikhalin Island with everything he had in early 1944.  Sikhalin has always been the real threat to Jap welfare, and early in '44 I was so weak that John had a decent chance of hurting me badly.  Not only were my ground forces wrecked, my ships were out of fuel, I was low on supplies, and I had a tremendously long and vulnerable supply line.  John didn't know my problems, of course, but he did know his - an Allied Sikhalin Island would be murder to the Japs.

At the current rate the Allies wouldn't achieve auto-victory until late winter or spring.  I'm at 1.40 to 1, and probably will be about 1.60 to one on New Years Day barring some calamitous one-sided victory that either increases or decreases that ratio.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

After detailing to John earlier today that I have (and have always had) my bombers set at 10% Naval Search, he writes this in his most recent email:  "Well--you changed your settings for this turn.  Actual real strikes came in.  I can handle that so much better then the other.  Only 22 hits this turn."

My reply:   "John, you're wrong every time you accuse me of something.  I've told you already that my settings have been Naval Strike with 10% Naval Search from the beginning and they remain so this turn. I have not touched the settings.  I've had real strikes every turn (your CVEs, BBs and a number of transports have fallen victim to them; but cloud cover has kept them from flying in large numbers up to now, I guess."

So now he doesn't believe my word on this, and he has also declined my offer to let a neutral party review the file.  I think I'm going to give him my password and let him see for himself.  I'm pretty  hacked off.  First he questioned my honesty, now he doubts the truth of what I've told him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Bullwinkle - If you play the game with VPs in mind then your point has some merit... although even then I think this Indian adventure is misjudged... but I tend to discount VPs. They are a crude measure which encourages less than ideal strategic decision-making. You should want to take Singapore because it is a developed port with 2 different routes of exploitation along SLOCs NOT because it will give you x hundred VPs. Different strokes for different folks though.

quote:

John has a pretty long way to go before he gets anywhere, Allied troops are already arriving in NE India, John doesn't have enough to really take anything the Allies defend, and how is he going to garrison what he does take? He'll either be spread awfully thin or he'll have just one or two powerful spearheads. He's going to be in big trouble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

One thing it didn't understand...
Why did he land at a place where your supply centers are as far away as possible? He needs totake Calcutta and/or Karachi (this prefered). This would allow him to feed his troops indepently even if blockaded - which you are already doing.
Landing at Trivandrum makes captureing these important points quite insecure...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Q Ball... Ah but it isn't necessary to sneak up on it. Just 2 more days hard sailing would have got him in position to land north of Bombay and really give the Allies a problem with a dual landing ( if he was still wedded to Trivandrum etc ).

Not quickly taking Bombay and basing Bettys there to cut off reinforcements originating from Aden is a major strategic blunder. No ifs ands or buts.

quote:


Strategically this is a huge bungle and the people who are applauding John's "audacity" are, IMO, completely missing the point. This is not the "least worst option" and when losing sometimes that's the best you can do ( not always but sometimes ).