Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, Paulus, then one can always reduce the tempo of the advance or focus on training pilots better to reduce loss rates at the sharp edge. In mid-March 1942 my fighter squadrons are beginning to fill nicely with 70 Exp A2A pilots from my reserves and many of my USAAF squadrons have 1/3rd to 1/2 of their pilots with mor than 70 A2A Exp.

End result when the Zeroes etc come up against my P40Bs and P40Es they lose somewhere between 2 and 4 to 1 ( in my favour ) on average at that early stage. This is late-44 when things should be even more extremely in the Allied favour. But Canoerebel didn't train sufficiently and so now he pays the price. There's nothing surprising or unfair about that. The reality though is that there are clear player-originated reasons for why things are turning out the way they are on both sides of this game. People can choose not to accept this if they wish but that doesn't alter the reality of the situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Well taken points but there are also historical reasons why things turn out as they do in a game. Irl distribution of USAAF fighters to the Pacific took a dive in late '44 due to a lack of an effective IJNAF/IJAAF, their limited role against kamis and lack of sufficient basing available in CentPac. Imo distribution to the Pacific would have been more of a priority if raids of the size seen in the aar by IJNAF/IJAAF lba were made and the DEI route chosen. Given the disparity in land mass between the DEI and CentPac routes basing limitations would not have been a concern.

As an aside, I find pilot training to be a pita. I suspect Canoerebel does as well.

quote:

As an aside, I find pilot training to be a pita. I suspect Canoerebel does as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I certainly agree with Canoe about CV reaction behavior. We should have more control over such a crucial asset.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Step right up boys! Sign up for the sensible rule that applies air-tight logic! Intuitiveness maximus!

That's right - put all common sense aside and just follow me blindly while I lead you down the counter-intuitive path that anybody can rationalize if you give them enough time and beer.

You'll have carriers throughout the entire war. Those carriers can stumble across the enemy at any moment. In order to prevent the carriers from reacting and doing really nonsensical manuevers sure to threaten your fleet with self-assured anihilation, you have to PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET! Never - repeat never - put somebody as gifted as a Halsey or Nimitz in command because in this game they do not act sensible. They will react against orders, steam hundreds of miles into the teeth of an overwhelming enemy force, leave behind LRCAP, forsake the escorting combat ships they were ordered to follow, and usually end up demolished.

In other words, Gentlemen, your best commanders are your worst commanders. Never put them in command!

Instead, you must for the entire war PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET. That way your carrier TFs will behave and not go off on a 200-mile lark into the teeth of an ambush. Oh, these incompetent officers don't know port from starboard and usually forget to launch into the wind and don't know sea room from a ward room, but they are your best choice.

That's right. We CANNOT have something as rationale as common sense in the game. We can't just allow commanders to choice their best officers for their most powerful and valuable assets. We simply CANNOT tolerate carriers obeying orders by not reacting when told not to. Instead, let's make the ultimate part of the game random, counter-intuitive, and as silly as we possibly can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Step right up boys! Sign up for the sensible rule that applies air-tight logic! Intuitiveness maximus!

That's right - put all common sense aside and just follow me blindly while I lead you down the counter-intuitive path that anybody can rationalize if you give them enough time and beer.

You'll have carriers throughout the entire war. Those carriers can stumble across the enemy at any moment. In order to prevent the carriers from reacting and doing really nonsensical manuevers sure to threaten your fleet with self-assured anihilation, you have to PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET! Never - repeat never - put somebody as gifted as a Halsey or Nimitz in command because in this game they do not act sensible. They will react against orders, steam hundreds of miles into the teeth of an overwhelming enemy force, leave behind LRCAP, forsake the escorting combat ships they were ordered to follow, and usually end up demolished.

In other words, Gentlemen, your best commanders are your worst commanders. Never put them in command!

Instead, you must for the entire war PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET. That way your carrier TFs will behave and not go off on a 200-mile lark into the teeth of an ambush. Oh, these incompetent officers don't know port from starboard and usually forget to launch into the wind and don't know sea room from a ward room, but they are your best choice.

That's right. We CANNOT have something as rationale as common sense in the game. We can't just allow commanders to choice their best officers for their most powerful and valuable assets. We simply CANNOT tolerate carriers obeying orders by not reacting when told not to. Instead, let's make the ultimate part of the game random, counter-intuitive, and as silly as we possibly can.

If this rant is in response to my preceding post then I view it as being very offensive. It does not accurately represent what I posted. Therefore I hope the rant is in response to something which has just occurred in your current game.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets... but I think the "place" that the carriers react to is partially restricted by threat.  Commanders on the scene reacted to the enemy fleets all the time, but they didn't react suicidally.  That is really where the issue is... CV's reacting into a spot that "guarantees" termination.  Carrier Commanders wouldn't react into range of 10000000 LBA, and neither should they do so in the game, but they would react enough to strike at juicy targets.

quote:

I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets.

If this is "react against orders" I disagree. The best commanders should be able to stick to their orders and plans. Don't react, means don't react. Stay put. Have any of the developers chimed in and said if this is a feature or a bug?

quote:

The react-despite-orders-not-to-react has been a plague since Uncommon Valor. Players have regularly griped about it through three generations of war games, but I've never seen a reply by one of the developers (not that they haven't replied - I bet they did early on and then just grew weary of repeating themselves over and over).

(I should also add that I really don't know who the developers are - I'm pretty sure The Elf, Terminus, and JWE were involved in AE, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject; I haven't paid very close attention to that, so some of those addressing the point in here may be developers and I wouldn't know it due to my ignorance).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets.

If this is "react against orders" I disagree. The best commanders should be able to stick to their orders and plans. Don't react, means don't react. Stay put. Have any of the developers chimed in and said if this is a feature or a bug?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
If the TF CO's op ord says "React is Zero hexes; stay with the transports" then darn it, stay with the freakin' transports. I don't care how much you're slavering for a fight. Follow your orders. If I'd have wanted you to exercise the aggressiveness I otherwise selected you for having I'd have spun the React spinner to 6. Inserting a React control and then not honoring it is, to me, unfair to the rational player who expects an interface to do what it's told.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


China:  A Chinese army took Liuchow and nearly inihilated the large Japanese garrison in the process.  This frees up troops to move on Nanning to the south and Kulako to the east.

[

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.