RE: Celebes Turkey Shoot?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Celebes Turkey Shoot?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Celebes Turkey Shoot?

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Celebes Turkey Shoot? - 1/17/2010 6:38:28 PM

d0mbo

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline

Q: have you lost any subs to enemy aerial ASW?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 601

RE: Celebes Turkey Shoot? - 1/17/2010 9:56:16 PM

Dave3L

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/17/2007
Status: offline

AND his subs put the Enterprise in the body and fender shop for several months as well.

(in reply to d0mbo)

Post #: 602

How to Stop the US Navy - 1/20/2010 4:00:25 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Quick update; had to find my AAR on page 2 because I haven't been sending turns, as work has been kicking my A**. So I haven't been able to continue the advance against the Empire. And I work for a Japanese company! I sense a plot here.......

Combat Report, Nov 10,11, 1942

Action is a bit slow prior to some movement by the Allied powers.....

Burma: We are almost ready for another attack on Lashio; the airstrip is trashed, which means that he can't repair forts. Last attack was 1-2 and dropped a fort, let's see if we can get 1-1.

Once Lashio is clear, we will be dropping the Chindits on Tayung Gyi.

Ellice Islands: 2 Regts and a Bn are loading up to clear the Ellice Islands. The main objective is to set-up a seaplane base. 3 CVEs will provide CAP against Bettys at Tabiteua, and I don't expect KB at all; it's in the SRA.

_____________________________

(in reply to d0mbo)

Post #: 603

Burma Question - 1/21/2010 3:34:41 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

OK, important question for the gallery.

This attack in Burma is going well. So well, it's clearly ahistorical. At this point, I have over 2500 well-supplied AV in several divisions pressing on the Japanese. I have 3 more divisions on the way to open another front from Akyab. This despite sending 3 Bdes and 2UK division all the way to Australia to help there. The British Indian Army is huge, well supplied, with piles of airbase and engineering support, and almost more aircraft than I can cram in the 4 size-8 airbases near the front.

If the British had all this in 1942, why didn't they just crush the Japanese in Burma? The answer of course is that there were huge logistical challenges, and that many of the Indian Divisions I am using weren't really ready for prime time in late 1942. It wasn't that easy, otherwise the British would have done it. Safe to say this is very skewed. Historically, the British couldn't mount an offensive on this scale until late 1944, and even then it was after the Japanese impaled themselves on Imphal and Kohima, greatly weakening their position.

Cuttlefish's Burma front is close to collapse. Lashio is down to ZERO forts, and the last attack was 1 to 1. If that falls, he will be fortunate to escape with the 3 divisions north of Shwebo. I expect to be banging on the gates of Rangoon around the New Year, and planning an invasion of Thailand after that. All this against 5 IJA Divisions, which is probably more than the Japanese ever had in Burma. Anytime the IJA air shows itself, it is instantly bombed/destroyed by the RAF. The Wehrmacht in 1944 had more air support.

So, now what? Do I halt? Find a self-imposed House Rule? Looking for suggestions, because I don't want to screw this game up.

Also, is this changed significantly in Patch 2?

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 604

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 3:55:46 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I would simply address this with Cuttlefish. Players will feret out little imbalances as we work deeper into this new, vast, complex, entertaining, and somewhat raw game that we love. Cuttlefish may have some opportunities the Japanese didn't have in real life so that he wants you to proceed, or he may politely ask you to hold off, or he may ask you to push so that you can test the game's parameters a bit all in the name of providing good data that the developers can consider as they work on future patches.

It's wonderful (and typical Q-Ball) that you would take this step instead of just driving the dagger home in the name of winning.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 605

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 3:56:31 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Glad for the update. Had I known it was on p. 2 of the AARs, I would'a 'bumped it' up, as this is one of my favs.

So many things in AE (like WiTP) are or can be a little 'off'. Go with it. This is your war, prosecute it as best you can, where you can with what you have. It is what it is.

Other posters will tell you that the IJN has an ahistorical benefit re: submarines or that the USN is hamstrung re: replacement pilot quality or carrier aircraft throughout 1942. Some will reiterate that China is catywompus and too easily 'rolled' by the IJA in 1942. Yup, that's life. Don't sacrifice your advantages on the altar of history. If it ain't completely FUBAR, it's fair game.

Maybe IRL the Indians had their defenses 'deeper' in India and were unwilling to go on the offensive as you are suggesting. So what? Even if it is without the 'benefit' of history, it's not gamey to use them in the manner you're suggesting.

If I may offer a note of caution: those 25 exp. Indian Divisions may not be as useful as you're suggesting. They are only marginally more useful than the Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa Burmese divisions / regiments / rabble that you were stuck with to defend Burma in 1941. You will need beaucoup numerical advantages to push around a quality division like the Imperial Guards.

Surprised that you're experiencing the same level of success in the air in Burma. Defensively, the IJAAF should be able to hold their own in Burma if Cuttlefish felt it necessary for them to do so.

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 606

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 4:06:13 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

Question, are you using the restricted Indian units ? Quite a lot of their divisions are attached to restricted commands, maybe a HR that you have to buy these out before committing them to Burma would have an impact ?

As for the difference after patch 2, I've posted the link already, but to me the number aren't saying too much yet, maybe we'll have to wait for someone who started after patch 2 to go the offensive in Burma to see what the effects are.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 607

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 4:08:28 PM

vlcz

Posts: 387
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
This attack in Burma is going well. So well, it's clearly ahistorical. At this point, I have over 2500 well-supplied AV in several divisions pressing on the Japanese.

Are you using units from (R) HQs?.... If you are doing it is the same boat as japan launching the full manchukuo army (except 8000AV for the garrison) against china without paying PP... we need land frontiers implemented (and I think this is in the works)

If you are doing that with "free" troops so soon.....then maybe there are too many free troops

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 608

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 4:52:21 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Q-Ball, I've been seeing what you describe in Burma in several AARs. Not only Burma either. The Southern SRA comes to mind too, as well as the Aleutians/Northern Japan. It seems like the Allies are bouncing back far too quickly. Not sure why though. Maybe larger garrison requirements for India would help? I certainly don't like all the dot hex max airfield sizes though. That seems unrealistic. Gotta ponder this some more.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to vlcz)

Post #: 609

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 4:58:06 PM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

OK, important question for the gallery.

This attack in Burma is going well. So well, it's clearly ahistorical. At this point, I have over 2500 well-supplied AV in several divisions pressing on the Japanese. I have 3 more divisions on the way to open another front from Akyab. This despite sending 3 Bdes and 2UK division all the way to Australia to help there. The British Indian Army is huge, well supplied, with piles of airbase and engineering support, and almost more aircraft than I can cram in the 4 size-8 airbases near the front.

If the British had all this in 1942, why didn't they just crush the Japanese in Burma? The answer of course is that there were huge logistical challenges, and that many of the Indian Divisions I am using weren't really ready for prime time in late 1942. It wasn't that easy, otherwise the British would have done it. Safe to say this is very skewed. Historically, the British couldn't mount an offensive on this scale until late 1944, and even then it was after the Japanese impaled themselves on Imphal and Kohima, greatly weakening their position.

Cuttlefish's Burma front is close to collapse. Lashio is down to ZERO forts, and the last attack was 1 to 1. If that falls, he will be fortunate to escape with the 3 divisions north of Shwebo. I expect to be banging on the gates of Rangoon around the New Year, and planning an invasion of Thailand after that. All this against 5 IJA Divisions, which is probably more than the Japanese ever had in Burma. Anytime the IJA air shows itself, it is instantly bombed/destroyed by the RAF. The Wehrmacht in 1944 had more air support.

So, now what? Do I halt? Find a self-imposed House Rule? Looking for suggestions, because I don't want to screw this game up.

Also, is this changed significantly in Patch 2?

I am concerned about this also. In Canoerebel's game where he is invading northern Japan in early 43 in the winter. I don't think that would have been doable in the northern Pacific in winter...

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 610

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 5:20:22 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I'm not concerned about it - it wasn't Winter - it was March and winter effects had just ended. More importantly, my opponent and I had equal knowledge that winter ended beginning March 1 and therefore we both were aware of what that meant.

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 611

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 5:40:37 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

OK, important question for the gallery.

This attack in Burma is going well. So well, it's clearly ahistorical. At this point, I have over 2500 well-supplied AV in several divisions pressing on the Japanese. I have 3 more divisions on the way to open another front from Akyab. This despite sending 3 Bdes and 2UK division all the way to Australia to help there. The British Indian Army is huge, well supplied, with piles of airbase and engineering support, and almost more aircraft than I can cram in the 4 size-8 airbases near the front.

If the British had all this in 1942, why didn't they just crush the Japanese in Burma? The answer of course is that there were huge logistical challenges, and that many of the Indian Divisions I am using weren't really ready for prime time in late 1942. It wasn't that easy, otherwise the British would have done it. Safe to say this is very skewed. Historically, the British couldn't mount an offensive on this scale until late 1944, and even then it was after the Japanese impaled themselves on Imphal and Kohima, greatly weakening their position.

Cuttlefish's Burma front is close to collapse. Lashio is down to ZERO forts, and the last attack was 1 to 1. If that falls, he will be fortunate to escape with the 3 divisions north of Shwebo. I expect to be banging on the gates of Rangoon around the New Year, and planning an invasion of Thailand after that. All this against 5 IJA Divisions, which is probably more than the Japanese ever had in Burma. Anytime the IJA air shows itself, it is instantly bombed/destroyed by the RAF. The Wehrmacht in 1944 had more air support.

So, now what? Do I halt? Find a self-imposed House Rule? Looking for suggestions, because I don't want to screw this game up.

Also, is this changed significantly in Patch 2?

Yes, two issues. It should take a little longer to train up the Indian army, and it should cost PP to enter Burma before 1943. Reason is that the whole country was in a near mutiny in 1942 and I doubt politically if they would have sent any forces very far away. Plus the loyalty of Indian troops were in question. I was able to train most Indian army units from level 20 to level 50 by May of 1942. (although most are not near full strength)

Two, they absolutely must make it harder for supplies to flow over rough and jungle terrain. I am seeing this effect in the game everywhere. The reason the Indian army had to wait until 1944 is the only way to really support a North Burma campaing was by air transport, and there was not enough in India until 44. No way they could move the supply between India and North Burma like it happens in game. My Japanese opponent just marched overland to PM from Buna with a large force and took it. Supply just did not factor in. It is almost like they need two types of trail. Paths such as the one that crossed the Owens Stanley range and then dirt roads such as were found in Northern OZ. Any path should send only a trickle of supply to reflect the lack of vehicular traffic.

And just practically prohibit the flow of supply over any terrain that is not clear or regular forest.

While we are at it. Much more disruption and fatigue for moving over jungle rough and mountain hexs. Infantry only and perhaps two miles per day for rough jungle and one mile per day for alpine.

However, one can't come without the other as the poorly trained Indian units would be very vulnerable to an overland attack by Japan if the supply issue still existed.

For now a short term fix might be to require the Allied or Japanese player to pay PP to enter Burma or India just as most of us do in China. I don't know about the Japanese side but the Allies are usually very short of PPs in early to mid 1942 due to the need to replace leaders and send restricted units to the South Pacific. I know I don't have the PPs in mid May to pay for units to leave India.

While I am at it, give big armor bonuses to Allied armor and motorized units in clear and desert terrain. I am getting tired of these Northern Oz invasions. 400 Grant and matilda tanks would cut through any Japanese army as soon as it left the protection of the coast.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 612

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 5:50:56 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

This brings to mind something I've thought about as well, but does not directly relate to the land unit issue being dealt with right now. I've noticed a lot of Allied players are using the British ships that are required to withdraw at some point very aggressively with the mentality of "hey, they have to be withdrawn anyway, so why not try and sink some Japanese assets in return, if they get sunk...so what." Historically those ships were meant for duties elsewhere, as we all know the Pacific was not the major theatre of operations on everyone's mind at the time. Many of these ships required to withdraw were needed for operations in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. I'd like to see a PP penalty instituted for the loss of any ships required to withdraw, or even have to be replaced by withdrawing a ship of equal value as the old "War in the Pacific" board game made you do. There should be a prohibitive cost for these tactics.

What the game cannot represent is the "Political" reasons why things were not done. Everything is not black and white. India had to be defended, Australia, New Zealand and other countries HAD to be defended. The British couldn't send their entire fleet/army to the Far East without severe political ramifications at home and among their Allies. The Allies couldn't strip every unit out of key areas leaving a token defence and say to those remaining you're on you own, the civilian populations would have freaked. How many countries do you know could willingly give up bases and cities leaving the civilian populations to wither and die? Any democratic government that did that would have a revolt on it's hands.

I'm learning that this entire game is ahistorical, the Allied player has the benefit of hindsight and can use all his forces aggressively to cause any number of unpleasant situations for the Japanese as Q-Ball and others have done, without any sense of the political ramifications that would occur in real life that made these operations impossible to undertake during those times. An aggressive Allied player can pick and choose where he halts the Japanese onslaught, or makes the price so high to pay that it effectively neuters Japanese capabilities in the future. The Japanese player is far more restricted, you HAVE to conquer Oil/Fuel bases, you have to ship resources to the Home Islands, you have to manage production. You can't dream up and implement an invasion of the U.S. because you then have no Oil/Fuel for the Home Islands and your economy crashes. A good Allied player will always be in a position to thwart Japanese expansion at a time and place of his choosing.

All this being said, Q-Ball your strategy and management of your forces has been masterful and you are to be congratulated. You're an honourable opponent realizing that you have Cuttle on the ropes somewhat and willing to back off for the sake of continuing a challenging game for both players. I totally agree with Chickenboy though. If you can dream up an operation and the game lets you do it, it's fair game. Until the game design itself can make ahistorical operations prohibitively costly for a player, this is the nature of the beast. Don't be surprised if you start having trouble finding players willing to play the Japanese in the future though.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 1/21/2010 9:59:10 PM >

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 613

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 6:05:55 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Something just dawned on me (since I really know very little about the Allied side of things). vlcz asked a question above that I didn't catch until crsutton's message. Are you moving restricted units into Burma? If that's the case, then I see a real issue. No restricted unit (on either side) should be able to move over a national border. That was a problem I ran into in an old WitP PBEM. Chinese units flooded into Burma totally overwhelming the Japanese. Just a thought....

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 614

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 6:05:56 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 615

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 6:15:49 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

By late '42 the Allies probably have enough PP to "un-restrict" many of the restricted Indian units. I know that I do in my game. So the problem may need even more treatment than just paying PP to move restricted units.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 616

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 6:36:09 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

Hey Lemon,

You make a couple of good points, especially about the ships due to be withdrawn. It does seem that this is hard to get right. On the one hand discouraging the sacrifice of the withdrawing ships is a good thing, I can't imagine a general saying "you're probably going to die on this mission, but otherwise I'll have to send you to another theatre". On the other hand having to withdraw an equivalent ship doesn't really work either, as that might mean the pacific is left with too few ships of a particular class. Imagine that I have 10 DD, 5 due to be withdrawn, for some reason I lose all 5, the admiralty probably won't ask me to withdraw the other 5 instead, it's simply impossible to leave the complete British pacific fleet without escorts.

I hope I can reassure you that in our games, the ships due to be withdrawn will not be sent on (near) suicide missions. That said, I do think that this is sometimes hard to judge. If you're expecting a surface bombardment by strong IJN forces on a base and there are RN BB nearby, when is it then gamey to use them, 1-10 is probably gamey, it's a 1 day delay of the bombardement at best, not a good trade for a BB and 1000 sailors, but what odds do become acceptable ? I think it's a call of the players themselves in each situation.

The other problem, not defending politically important targets doesn't seem too much of a problem. I haven't seen any AAR where major population centres were left wide open for the Japanese to take (Calcutta has fallen a few times it seems, but hardly due to Sir Robins). Burma and Northern Australia do seem to be taken against a token defence some times, but I'm not too sure that's really an unrealistic strategy.

< Message edited by Smeulders -- 1/21/2010 7:10:48 PM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 617

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 6:46:15 PM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

It is to bad thought that the game can't consider national borders as an impassable territory for restricted units, ie you would be free to use your indian units throughout india and to defend Imphal and allia, but they just could'nt cross to Burma until bought...

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 618

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 6:46:37 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I agree with Smeulders, the only solution for this one (and many similar issues in a game/simulation this complex) is to find an honorable opponent and agree on non-gaminess, spelling out whatever the two of you think should be spelled out.

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 619

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 7:48:30 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

My intention was not to imply that gamey tactics were used on the part of any players, I just want to make that clear. I was just trying to point out that by being a game, players are free to utilize their forces in any matter of ways which will always lead to ahistorical outcomes. Unless the game can somehow penalize players that stretch the historical realities of the time too far, or in some cases even reward players who keep within the confines of the historical context, these issues will be just that, issues. We don't have to deal with any of the real life consequences of decisions that governments at the time had to wrestle with.

It's all good Smeulders, I realize that it's unrealistic to expect a player to not use what forces he has availbale to give the best chance of success in a combat situation. I agree it isn't practical to replace a ship required to withdraw with another one in it's place either, so I think a PP penalty is best. The intention is to withdraw the ship/unit intact, and if it by the fortunes of war gets sunk/destroyed, some other method of having to make up for that is required.

witpqs, I completely agree, but would like to add that the game can help in this as well as far as incurring penalties if it's learned game play is becoming unbalanced. The house rule system seems to be able to address many of these issues, and open discussion on these subjects will make us all aware of potential pitfalls to balanced game play. Following these AAR's is a great way to learn so we can make the game experience as enjoyable as possible for everyone.

Just my 2 cents, I still love the game!

Sorry to interrupt your AAR Q-Ball, on with the show!

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 1/21/2010 8:06:15 PM >

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 620

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 7:55:38 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Something just dawned on me (since I really know very little about the Allied side of things).� vlcz asked a question above that I didn't catch until crsutton's message.� Are you moving restricted units into Burma?� If that's the case, then I see a real issue.� No restricted unit (on either side) should be able to move over a national border.� That was a problem I ran into in an old WitP PBEM.� Chinese units flooded into Burma totally overwhelming the Japanese.� Just a thought....

I missed this caveat too, but agree with crsutton's observations. Pay the PP to use the Indians en masse on a Burmese offensive.

Playing the IJA with the ITA divisions, I must confess to willingness to use them 'just' over the border at Pegu. My temptation has extended their mission to capture Rangoon in one of my PBEMs. I don't intend to go further.

I can make some arguments for why this is a more reasonable force disposition than schlepping Chinese masses across 500 miles of tractless jungle into yet more tractless jungle in another country (e.g., Burma). However, like the Burmese 'battalions' / rabble, if the system didn't want me to move 'em, it should have fixed 'em in place.

That's my long-winded way of saying that I hesitate to use the blanket 'no restricted unit on either side' statement when discussing uses of my troops.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 621

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 8:03:23 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
I am concerned about this also. In Canoerebel's game where he is invading northern Japan in early 43 in the winter. I don't think that would have been doable in the northern Pacific in winter...

This invasion was extremely costly for Allies. The only part that can be seen as totally ahistorical, as opposed to the result of the willingless to pay for the success with many dozens of ships on the part of the Allied command, is the length of time for which garrisons on the conquered islands can maintain active air operations, despite not getting any supply by sea.

So, the core problem in all cases can be identified as way-too-easy logistics.

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 622

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 8:38:22 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

Anytime the IJA air shows itself, it is instantly bombed/destroyed by the RAF. The Wehrmacht in 1944 had more air support.

I have to agree that the flow of supplies and the training of Indian troops seems unrealistically easy for the Allies. However, I think one of the key reasons that the British did not do as well historically was the need to commit considerable resources to the forgotten campaign of WWII: the Madagascar campaign. This lasted longer than it should have because there was a French law stating that officers who had been in a combat theater six months or longer were entitled to higher pensions. The Vichy therefore dragged out the conquest of Madagascar for the appropriate time, instead of sensibly surrendering.

A second point is that I feel Cuttlefish made a serious error in not contesting the skies over Burma. It's much harder to build an air defense from bombed runways and new squadrons rather than squadrons already in theater. This in turn has given a major boost to your ground combat.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 623

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 8:39:55 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

... if the system didn't want me to move 'em, it should have fixed 'em in place.

Early on with the release of AE they stated that they tried to implement national borders but just didn't have time to make them work right. IMO it's just an item for players to adhere to on their own. YMMV.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 624

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 9:05:24 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I definitely am using several Restricted Indian units. Never thought of a House Rule around that. Perhaps it should be standard now?

As far as experience, if you train them, the Indian formations get 50+ experience, which is acceptable. As long as you are not heavily fighting, you have enough replacements to round out almost ALL of them by October 1942. So, they are all pretty much trained and ready to go. The Tank units are still short; I only had enough to fill out the Recon units and one Tank Bde, but everything else is full-strength. So the game gives you the strength to do it.

Maybe I should pull everyone back, and only cross with non-restricted units. I think that is a viable solution. I think EVERYONE should consider this as a standard HR for the future. It will turn the Burma/India area into what is pretty much was; a low-intensity stalemate.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 625

RE: Burma Question - 1/21/2010 10:26:09 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

I definitely am using several Restricted Indian units. Never thought of a House Rule around that. Perhaps it should be standard now?

I buy out the restricted Indian units. Same as I buy out the marine units in the US that should not have been restricted in the first place. Several large units in the US that should have been unrestricted are restricted. In fact, when AE came out, one of the US divisions at or near the start of the game was unrestricted (I forget the unit number) but became restricted after the first hotfix. Frankly, I wish they would do away with most restricted units. In Manchuko, make the magic number that activates Russia a random number from unknown to ? that is generated at the start of a game and base it on loading capacity, not AV. In India and China, and major cities such as Rangoon, Bangkok, HK re-look at garrison requirements. Take the discussion or restricted units off the forum. Now then, who do I talk to abut increasing the production rate of Corsairs?

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 626

RE: Burma Question - 1/22/2010 2:52:35 AM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

Posted in the wrong place. My apologies.

< Message edited by BrucePowers -- 1/22/2010 2:53:32 AM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 627

RE: Burma Question - 1/22/2010 7:54:32 AM

vlcz

Posts: 387
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I definitely am using several Restricted Indian units. Never thought of a House Rule around that. Perhaps it should be standard now?
...
I think that is a viable solution. I think EVERYONE should consider this as a standard HR for the future.

As long as I know it is even a change the devs intended to made in at second patch but didn�t make in time ...

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 628

RE: Burma Question - 1/22/2010 3:32:14 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Well, if they are restricted I believe it is fair to keep them in India (unless you have paid the PP's?). Think about all those infantry units in Manchuko the Japanese player could move into China... I believe that is the same

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to vlcz)

Post #: 629

RE: Burma Question - 1/22/2010 4:39:03 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Burma: Let the record show that Cuttlefish didn't ask for any quarter in Burma, but that I came to the conclusion that it's out of control. As a result, I have asked for a Cease Fire in Burma, and will be pulling back all the Restricted units.

I do plan to try to hang onto Myiktyina. Cuttlefish held it with a single Regt, so I don't feel too guilty about it; maybe he can shove me out. I am buying an Indian Division to help with that, and have a few other units that are non-restricted available.

I think this is fair; the British should not be able to roll into Burma like this. The huge RAF presence is bad enough, no sense having massive land unit attacks as well.

So, the Burma offensive is over. No para drop on Tayung Gyi. I was kind of hoping to see how that one turned out. As it happens, it's going to have to wait until 1943 or 1944, when I have enough PPs to send the Indian Army back into Burma in force.

Combat Report, Nov 14-17, 1942

Otherwise, little combat these two turns, but a few things are about to happen....

DEI: An Australian Bde plus tanks are loading at Port Hedland, to land at Raba. Raba is currently Dutch, so they will unload at the pier, but I am treating it like a contested invasion, because it's only 4 hexes from Makassar and bound to get Cuttlefish's full attention.

I have follow-on engineers also building up. This base will put some pressure on, and make it look like I am moving toward Java. Although that's not a bad idea, I'm not really interested in a land battle on Java. I might move on Mataram in order to close Soerbaba port, but that's about it. I am more interested in a move on Celebes, and specifically closing the Makassar Strait. If I do that, all the Oil in the SRA will have to transit between Cam Ranh Bay and Brunei through the South China Sea. I will flood that area with subs and get to work.......

Next step after Raba will be Salajar, a little island I had never heard of before south of Celebes. Securing Salajar, which is undefended, will provide easy aircover for a move on Kendari.

SUPPLY LINES: Our main axis of advance in the Pacific will continue to be through the DEI. No sense wasting effort elsewhere, when that's where the Oil is. I do, however, plan a couple other operations in the Pacific. They have several objectives:

1. Keep pressure on elsewhere, so he has to think about multiple threats
2. Clear a much shorter supply line to Darwin; specifically, I want to open the Torres Strait to shipping. If I do that, it's going to make the DEI alot easier to reinforce from the USA.
3. Draw combat troops away from the DEI and into the SW Pacific

Ellice Islands: Our troops land in two days on all 3 islands of the Ellice Island chain. This invasion is really just to expand our search coverage, and provide an early warning system so that transport traffic is secure as far as Fiji.

Other units are prepping for a landing at Luganville and Efate, which are the next steps. This will effectively cut-off Noumea. I plan to then land at Koumac, build an airbase, and keep Noumea in check. If there garrison at Noumea is anything larger than a Regt, I am going to bypass it; don't need it at the moment.

Port Moresby: I am pulling together an invasion here, and should be ready in 30 days or so. The primary objective will be to open the Torres Strait, with the secondary objective of luring in the IJA.

In the SW Pacific, all these moves will make it appear that Rabaul is a long-term target. It isn't. I don't plan to go any further in the SW Pacific than Ndeni, Port Moresby, and Milne Bay. Once those are secure, my bombers will pound Lae, Rabaul, and Lunga into dust so that they can't interfere with my convoys. There will be no battle of Guadalcanal in this game! I'm already planning to invade Kendari, why do I need to screw around with Munda or anything like that?

_____________________________

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 630