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: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens

 
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: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens - 9/3/2010 8:28:06 AM   
FatR

 

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


Could anyone provide info re: skip-bombing with > 80 low naval attack experience crews? I think 80 Exp is the cut-off for getting good results so it'd be interesting to see what the results are there. I amn't far enough along in my game to know.

Not it isn't. In my experience, at 65-70 skill skipbombing become super-effective and everything in the range that cannot shrug off bomb hits just dies (considering that Mitchells and Marauders almost always can break through even without escort). Generally every pass yields at least one bomb hit. DDs and APDs are hit regularly as well.

About altitude, I too think that the problem is overrated. Ki-43-Ics even perform better by flying always at 15k, instead of their max altitude. People often tend to mix bounce caused by a combat advantage (i.e. of CAP vs. escorts) with bounce caused by superior altitude. These are different things. Altitude bounce potential runs out quickly, combat advantage lasts the whole combat.

As about giving interceptors a greater chance to engage bombers, instead of fighters, just no. Specialized anti-bomber fighters were generally a bad idea in RL, except when the enemy was forced to fly unescorted, why they should work in AE?



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 601
RE: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens - 9/3/2010 8:39:11 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Nemo,

good to see you reemerging, it has been a while since you last posted. It looks as if I may have some time at my handsd today, so I'll try to comment on this or that later on, but first things first:

The meaning of my subject was "I fear Nemo, even if he brings presents" (the meaning noone should be blocked, because I think that should be "neminem", but not sure there). This references Vergil's rendering of Laokoon's warning in view of the Trojan horse in his Aeneis ("Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"), unfortunately I don't know greek, so I'll turn a blind eye on Homer ;).

I am a big fan of EA (or at least was a big fan of EA WitP, not knowing the new, improved product as of yet) because it is layered and requires second looks. Don't just proceed without having pondered about the consequences now and in the long run - just like you said in your own post.

Consequently, it is this mindset one should apply with respect to the addition of degrees of freedom in Allied production. It probably sounds like a wish come true for many of the Allied players, which feel constrained by the airframe production they are given now and probably feel an abundance of supplies and -at least after a year or so into the game- xAKs. I really don't think that assessment will be correct and thought a word of warning for those players who expect to be given something for free (like in other mods) would be adequate.

Hopefully more later.

Hartwig

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 602
RE: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens - 9/3/2010 8:26:58 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

I sank an IJN DD and xAK near southern Borneo with a CL-led raiding TF.


Would that be more of the veteran Marblehead at work?

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 603
RE: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens - 9/3/2010 9:44:39 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tawau at 69,91, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Karii, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Yanagi, Shell hits 1
xAKL Bunzan Maru, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Glasgow
CL Newcastle
DD Bagley
DD Blue

These were detached from the PoW/Repulse TF which is currently hanging around Kendar and Manado.


Ground combat at Kiukiang (85,53)

Allied Shock attack

This closes the long envelopment of the IJA forces at Changsha.

Attacking force 38380 troops, 152 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1533

Defending force 4442 troops, 53 guns, 30 vehicles, Assault Value = 117

Allied adjusted assault: 978

Japanese adjusted defense: 127

Allied assault odds: 7 to 1 (fort level 2)

Allied forces CAPTURE Kiukiang !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
1156 casualties reported
Squads: 56 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 69 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 17 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 11 (11 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 18 (18 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 3

171 destroyed squads. That's another helpful blow.

Allied ground losses:
202 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
99th Chinese Corps
46th Chinese Corps
70th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
Kyuko Naval Guard Unit
22nd/B Division
17th JAAF Base Force



_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 604
RE: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens - 9/4/2010 11:17:44 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 18, 42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tandjoengbalai at 47,78, Range 2,000 Yards

The raiding TF i used to cover the landings in northern Sumatra struck an IJN reinforcement TF my subs had spotted at Tandjoengbalai. Most of the troops had unloaded but a PB and 5 xAKs is nothing to sneeze at. best of all they got away scott free. They'll reload and refuel at Rangoon and then return to station ready to repeat the performance with the next reinforcement TF which makes for Tandjoengbalai.

Japanese Ships
PB Kozan Maru, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
xAK Heito Maru, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Ryuko Maru, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Ansyu Maru, Shell hits 40, and is sunk
xAK Hokutai Maru, Shell hits 29, and is sunk
xAK Hukuzyu Maru, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Nashville
DD Napier
DD Nestor
DD Nizam
DD Norman

Japanese ground losses:
Vehicles lost 8 (5 destroyed, 3 disabled)



Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway
Reduced sighting due to 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 7% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Combat ends with last Japanese ship sunk...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kwajalein Island at 132,115

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-20

Allied Ships
DMS Perry
DMS Zane
DMS Elliot
DMS Wasmuth
DMS Chandler
DMS Long


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Groot Natoena at 57,84

Japanese Ships
E Omae

Allied Ships
SS Searaven

More TF making for Singapore. I have a CL TF waiting for this TF to arrive in 2 to 3 days time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 201st(Sep) Infantry Regiment, at 136,48 (Onnekotan-jima)

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 22



No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
22 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 47th Construction Regiment ...
Also attacking 201st(Sep) Infantry Regiment ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kanhsien , at 81,57

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 6
Ki-30 Ann x 17



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
17 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 9
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 14
Ki-51 Sonia x 21



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 34

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
14 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb

Lots of IJAAF action over China, as always.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-36 Ida x 16



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 6

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 19



No Japanese losses



Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 6

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 22nd/A Division, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
SB-III x 8


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Nice results from just 11 bombers.



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x A-29A Hudson bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
4 x SB-III bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 100 kg GP Bomb
4 x SB-III bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 100 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 12
A-29 Hudson x 6


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-8, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x A-20A Havoc bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x A-29 Hudson bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Petropavlovsk at 141,48

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
B5N2 Kate x 1



No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
xAKL Island Mail, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Damn, he has another CVE TF backstopping the TF he sent towards the Aleutians.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Bering Island at 146,49

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
B5N1 Kate x 8



Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
APD Manley, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
APD Gregory, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 16
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 24



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 1 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 45th Indian Bde /1 ...
Also attacking Langsa ...
Also attacking 45th Indian Bde /1 ...
Also attacking Langsa ...
Also attacking 45th Indian Bde /1 ...
Also attacking Langsa ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 45th Indian Brigade, at 46,74 (Langsa)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 18
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 33



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 3 damaged
Ki-48-Ib Lily: 1 damaged



Aircraft Attacking:
15 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
18 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
18 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 25



No Japanese losses



Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Onnekotan-jima (136,48)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19973 troops, 149 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 725

Defending force 6057 troops, 116 guns, 155 vehicles, Assault Value = 186

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 320

Allied adjusted defense: 493

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
734 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 123 disabled
Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 96 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled


Allied ground losses:
640 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 72 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 100 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 4 disabled
Vehicles lost 33 (2 destroyed, 31 disabled)

Heavy allied losses. I need to get supplies in there so I can build the forts back up.


Assaulting units:
64th Naval Guard Unit
62nd Naval Guard Unit
48th Engineer Regiment
Guards Mixed Brigade
65th Naval Guard Unit
63rd Naval Guard Unit
61st Infantry Group
67th Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
201st(Sep) Infantry Regiment
161st Infantry Regiment
1st Marine Raider Battalion
1st/102nd Infantry Bn /1
111th USN Base Force /9
Bobcats USN Naval Construction Battalion
47th Construction Regiment
205th Field Artillery Battalion
42nd Construction Regiment
C Det USN Port Svc /1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20611 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 671

Defending force 17971 troops, 186 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 508



Assaulting units:
4th Chinese Corps
25th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
20th RGC Division
1st Ind.Inf.Group
66th Infantry Regiment
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
31st Special Base Force
47th JAAF AF Bn
1st JAAF AF Coy
Canton Special Base Force
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
2nd JAAF AF Coy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 24985 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 965

Defending force 30983 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1101

Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
15th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
35th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
11th Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Nanchang (85,54)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4705 troops, 43 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 506

Defending force 4002 troops, 38 guns, 18 vehicles, Assault Value = 142



Assaulting units:
46th Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
16th Group Army
9th Group Army
Central Reserve
23rd Group Army

Defending units:
22nd/A Division




_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 605
More Surface Combat - 9/5/2010 8:44:06 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

The raiding TF i used to cover the landings in northern Sumatra struck an IJN reinforcement TF my subs had spotted at Tandjoengbalai. Most of the troops had unloaded but a PB and 5 xAKs is nothing to sneeze at. best of all they got away scott free. They'll reload and refuel at Rangoon and then return to station ready to repeat the performance with the next reinforcement TF which makes for Tandjoengbalai.


Truly impressive torpedo performance -- that's the difference between RN and USN torpedoes in 1942. The failure to take Rangoon on schedule is having a cost to the Japanese war effort.

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 606
Subs, subs, subs * - 9/7/2010 11:12:57 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Should be sung to the tune of the Spam song by Monty Python

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 19, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Onnekotan-jima at 136,48

Japanese Ships
SS I-7

Allied Ships
xAKL White Wing, Shell hits 40, heavy fires, heavy damage

Damn,
Cost of the current supply effort to Onnekotan: 4 ships.
Supplies Delivered: 0 tons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub vs Sub: SS I-172 attacking SS KVIII at 51,94 - near Toboali

Japanese Ships
SS I-172

Allied Ships
SS KVIII, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

SS I-172 launches 4 torpedoes at 3,000 yards

Glug, glug.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kwajalein Island at 132,115

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-20

Allied Ships
AM Tern
AM Bobolink
AM Robin
AM Vireo
AM Grebe



SSX Ha-20 is sighted by escort
AM Bobolink fails to find sub and abandons search
AM Robin fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Vireo fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Grebe fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Peleliu at 90,98

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
xAKL Ryua Maru
xAKL Horei Maru
xAKL Fukuyama Maru

Allied Ships
SS Grampus

Interesting results here. He's lost two CL to subs over the past month as they are tied to escorting transport TFs. This has been forced on him by my surface raiding missions and is both forcing him to commit warships to escort missions instead of surface combat TFs AND it is costing him ships as these CLs are moving slowly with the AKs and make great targets for my subs.

SS Grampus launches 6 torpedoes at CL Jintsu
Escort abandons search for sub

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Singapore at 50,84

Japanese Ships
xAKL Genkai Maru
DD Yudachi

Allied Ships
SS Grayling



SS Grayling is sighted by escort
Grayling bottoming out ....
DD Yudachi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yudachi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yudachi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yudachi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yudachi fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on I Aus Corps Engineer Battalion, at 46,74 (Langsa)

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
17 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Talaud-eilanden at 79,97

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10

KB showed up off Talaud.... Weather was terrible so they only caught two xAKs unloading the NZ 2nd Base Force. Those two ships were sunk and the BF took heavy casualties but, all in all, Manado will be buzzing with fighters tomorrow and it'll be a brave Japanese player who sends KB in there. The strike groups will get through and cause great damage but KB will be a spent force for 2 months after such a day.



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 4


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




Aircraft Attacking:
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet

CAP engaged:
33rd PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 61st PA Infantry Division, at 79,84 (Iloilo)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kanhsien , at 81,57

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 6
Ki-30 Ann x 17



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
17 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 61st PA Infantry Division, at 79,84 (Iloilo)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 12



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
78 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on I Aus Corps Engineer Battalion, at 46,74 (Langsa)

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 20
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 23
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 27



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 3 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 7 damaged
Ki-48-Ib Lily: 3 damaged


Allied ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
23 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
23 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 24
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 15



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
24 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 45th Indian Bde /1 ...
Also attacking Langsa ...
Also attacking 45th Indian Bde /1 ...
Also attacking Langsa ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 19



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 22nd/A Division, at 85,54 (Nanchang)

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
SB-III x 8


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x A-29A Hudson bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
4 x SB-III bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 100 kg GP Bomb
4 x SB-III bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 100 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 9


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 5 damaged



Airbase supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x A-20A Havoc bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 3
A-29 Hudson x 6


No Allied losses



Runway hits 3
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x A-29 Hudson bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x A-20A Havoc bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 25



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Talaud-eilanden at 79,97

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
D3A1 Val x 10



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 1


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Michael Embiricos, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Kutsang, Bomb hits 1, on fire


Allied ground losses:
88 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
10 x D3A1 Val bombing from 9000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet

CAP engaged:
33rd PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000
Raid is overhead

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Kutsang
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Michael Embiricos


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 9



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-27b Nate sweeping at 10000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Iloilo , at 79,84

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
6 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 15



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 12

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 8
Ki-36 Ida x 12



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 12

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Iloilo , at 79,84

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 15



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Talaud-eilanden at 79,97

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 31 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 49
D3A1 Val x 13



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 4


Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Kutsang, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Michael Embiricos, heavy fires, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
245 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 44 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Aircraft Attacking:
13 x D3A1 Val bombing from 9000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet
5 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet
11 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet
8 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 9000 feet

CAP engaged:
33rd PS (P) with P-40E Warhawk (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Kutsang
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Michael Embiricos


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Babeldaob at 90,97

Japanese Ships
DMS W-8
DD Tatsukaze
PB Hakata Maru #2

Allied Ships
SS KXV, hits 14, heavy fires, heavy damage

A hunter killer group gets lucky.



SS KXV is located by DMS W-8
KXV bottoming out ....
DD Tatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tatsukaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tatsukaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tatsukaze is out of ASW ammo
DD Tatsukaze is out of ASW ammo
SS KXV forced to surface!
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tatsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tatsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tatsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
PB Hakata Maru #2 firing on surfaced sub ....
DMS W-8 firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Semarang at 53,100

Japanese Ships
SS I-164

Allied Ships
TK Ferncastle, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires

Well, he's found my new convoy routes. Time to change them again.



TK Ferncastle is sighted by SS I-164
SS I-164 launches 4 torpedoes at TK Ferncastle


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Manado at 75,99

Japanese Ships
SS I-168, hits 2

One of these hits was a penetrating hit which caused major flooding and engine damage. Fingers crossed it sinks.

Allied Ships
xAK Jalapalaka
xAK Barpeta
AM Whippoorwill



SS I-168 is sighted by escort
I-168 bottoming out ....
AM Whippoorwill attacking submerged sub ....
AM Whippoorwill cannot establish contact with SS I-168
AM Whippoorwill cannot establish contact with SS I-168
AM Whippoorwill loses contact with SS I-168
AM Whippoorwill fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Whippoorwill fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Whippoorwill attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-168 eludes AM Whippoorwill by hugging bottom
SS I-168 eludes AM Whippoorwill by hugging bottom
AM Whippoorwill cannot establish contact with SS I-168
AM Whippoorwill cannot reach attack position over SS I-168
AM Whippoorwill fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20606 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 671

Defending force 17963 troops, 186 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 506


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
4th Chinese Corps
25th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
66th Infantry Regiment
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
20th RGC Division
1st Ind.Inf.Group
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
Canton Special Base Force
31st Special Base Force
47th JAAF AF Bn
1st JAAF AF Coy
2nd JAAF AF Coy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 24992 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 966

Defending force 30987 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1101


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
9th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
35th Division
11th Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Nanchang (85,54)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 13539 troops, 81 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 513

Defending force 4007 troops, 38 guns, 18 vehicles, Assault Value = 142

Allied adjusted assault: 367

Japanese adjusted defense: 46

Allied assault odds: 7 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1102 casualties reported
Squads: 37 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 38 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Just pushing another third of an IJA division back.

Allied ground losses:
167 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 18 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
46th Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
16th Group Army
Central Reserve
9th Group Army
23rd Group Army

Defending units:
22nd/A Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 85,52

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 20022 troops, 76 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 837

Defending force 2879 troops, 48 guns, 8 vehicles, Assault Value = 61

Allied adjusted assault: 446

Japanese adjusted defense: 87

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses:
1184 casualties reported
Squads: 54 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 67 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 3

The long arm of the Changsha envelopment continues to push onto the port linking the northern and southern Chinese fronts. Once that's taken I'll have finally gotten good lateral LOCs along the front which will allow me rapid shifting of forces and give ME useful interior lines as opposed to the mirage of interior lines China has at the beginning of the war which are so poor in quality that, functionally, Japan can shift forces more rapidly.


Allied ground losses:
408 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 42 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
99th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
Kyuko Naval Guard Unit
22nd/B Division
17th JAAF Base Force




_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 607
RE: Subs, subs, subs * - 9/11/2010 4:42:29 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 24992 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 966

Defending force 30987 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1101


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
9th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
35th Division
11th Division


Am I reading this wrong, or should you have had more active troops? Well, in spite of the low results, I imagine this attack gave some useful experience to your units.

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 608
KB hits and runs... - 9/12/2010 12:36:07 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		No Harlock, you're reading it right. Basically quite a few of those Corps are 50 to 60 AV units. When he first attacked his arty butchered a few Corps. I have three reasonably-sized Corps and then 3 or 4 40 to 60 AV Corps holding this path. It looks more impressive than it is but it is enough to hold 1,000 AV of IJA troops in wooded terrain. The bombardments are being done to bring my experience up to IJA levels. I have another 120,000 tons of supply in Rangoon ready to bring into the theatre and have 40,000 tons in Sian so supplies, for once, aren't a problem in the northern sector of China.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 20, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Singapore at 50,84, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Kohuku Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
xAK Keisho Maru, Shell hits 20, and is sunk
xAK Matsukawa Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Hokuzyu Maru, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

I'm using my sub concentrations around Singkawang and Singapore to search for IJN TFs making for Singkawang and Singapore so that I can plot their speed and distance to port and intercept them on the phase they arrive - thus allowing me to sink them before they unload. Unfortunately I mis-timed this and missed a DD-escorted convoy yesterday. I got it right tonight though but I think the xAKs were empty after having delivered troops to northern Sumatra.

It doesn't really matter though, another 4 IJN ships destroyed at almost no cost to Allied shipping. The system damage is creeping up though so I'll rotate this CL TF with the DDs and CLs which have just finished refitting in Soerabaja and Colombo.

Fortunately the river into Palembang doesn't allow access to IJN CAs so if Mike wants me he'll have to send CLs and his CLs are taking a significant beating, as are his DDs so I don't think he will be willing to lose the 12 to 20 CLs and DDs which eliminating this TF would require.

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise
CL Emerald, Shell hits 1
CL Ceres
CL Caledon
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Fortune, Shell hits 1
DD Griffin
DD Hotspur



Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway
Reduced sighting due to 25% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 25% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 2,000 yards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Peleliu at 90,98

Japanese Ships
xAK Unkai Maru #6
xAKL Horei Maru
xAKL Nanka Maru

Allied Ships
SS Grayback


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Tandjoengpinang at 50,85

Japanese Ships
SS I-169

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise
CL Emerald
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Hotspur
DD Griffin



SS I-169 launches 4 torpedoes at CL Enterprise
DD Hotspur fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Griffin fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

It looks like Mike is trying the same thing, kill my CLs as they transit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Manado , at 75,99

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 45 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 10
F2A-3 Buffalo x 9
F4F-3A Wildcat x 5
F4F-3 Wildcat x 8


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed

It looks even but 21 of the Zeroes were damaged in combat so at least 5 or 6 of them should fail to return to base. Overall I expect I'll lose 3 planes and he'll lose 8 to 9 Zeroes, including ops losses.

I think KB was supposed to follow up this strike but the weather was bad and so it didn't launch.



Aircraft Attacking:
2 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet *



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Manado , at 75,99

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 2
F2A-3 Buffalo x 6
F4F-3A Wildcat x 1
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 9
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 14
Ki-51 Sonia x 21



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 7
Runway hits 31

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
14 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on I Aus Corps Engineer Battalion, at 44,70 (Sabang)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 48 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 20
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 23



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 8


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 4 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged

A bad day for the IJAAF. Tomorrow Sabang will be swept by fighters though and that will put the cat among the pidgeons.



Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 19



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sian , at 83,41

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 12
Ki-27b Nate x 9



Allied aircraft
I-16-III x 2
I-15-III x 3
Hawk 75M x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sian , at 83,41

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 7



Allied aircraft
I-16-III x 1
I-15-III x 3


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48-Ib Lily: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Now that he's found the Chinese fighter groups he'll sweep to kill them. Time to pull back now that the easy kills are gone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 102nd Infantry Regiment, at 81,59

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
SB-III x 8


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
41 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Prepping for the river crossing later today... Note the heavy casualties inflicted by the bombers. My Chinese bombers have lost almost no planes to FlAK or A2A combat and so are mostly above 70 ground attack experience. They've flown more ground attack sorties than any other Allied bomber type.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 9


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 9 damaged



Runway hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 3
A-29 Hudson x 6


Allied aircraft losses
A-29 Hudson: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-25, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage

Runway hits 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 24



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 25



No Japanese losses



Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Iloilo , at 79,84

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
9 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 3rd PI Base Force, at 78,84 (San Jose)

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8



No Japanese losses



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 3rd PI Base Force, at 78,84 (San Jose)

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 11



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Iloilo , at 79,84

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 15



No Japanese losses



Runway hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20604 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 671

Defending force 17991 troops, 186 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 508



Assaulting units:
25th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
66th Infantry Regiment
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
1st Ind.Inf.Group
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
20th RGC Division
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
Canton Special Base Force
1st JAAF AF Coy
31st Special Base Force
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
47th JAAF AF Bn
2nd JAAF AF Coy

Interestingly apart from the 10th Garrison division it looks like an IJA normal infantry division ( the 21st ) is also making for Canton. That is two divisions from his reserve diverted into this sideshow. Excellent work.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 25016 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 970

Defending force 30983 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1101



Assaulting units:
15th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
35th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
11th Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 81,59

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 8260 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 299

Defending force 1523 troops, 34 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 36

Allied adjusted assault: 336

Japanese adjusted defense: 21

Allied assault odds: 16 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
722 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 23 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 1


Allied ground losses:
211 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
73rd Chinese Corps

Defending units:
102nd Infantry Regiment

|The river crossing went well. The 102nd Infantry Regiment pretty much ceases to exist as a militarily-capable force. Now time to fully isolate Changsha and to begin shifting my dive and torpedo-bomber groups into southern sumatra in preparation for the Singapore raid. It should be about 5 or 6 days away.



_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 609
The Hermeneutics of Competence.... - 9/12/2010 11:33:20 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Recently there's been quite a bit of discussion about various Allied strategies on the forum. I've engaged in a couple of the discussions but, honestly, the reality is that in life most people are satisfied once they have an explanation which exonerates them from responsibility. Whether that be due to the game hating them, their opponent being ueber-awesome or some supernatural entity/deity making the crops fail --- Note to self, sacrifice more virgins next year so the rains come.

In any case I've been interested recently to see various people anchor the discussion of strategy with various assumptions both explicit and implicit and I've also been thinking of the hermeneutics of the situation - Yes, you've guessed it. I'm on call to the ER for 72 hrs straight and I'm a bit bored - which is good because it means no-one is currently psychotic or trying to kill themselves - and desperately trying to avoid having to look at statistics for my research * shudder*.


So, for those of you who aren't aware of hermeneutics it is the concept that communication is a process of interpretation and that words have meaning only because we ascribe them meaning. When you listen to a foreign language which you don't know it is simply a collection of sounds, just as English ( to choose an example ) is simply a collection of sounds which ONLY have meaning because those who "speak" English have all agreed that those sounds have meaning. The smallest conglomeration of sound to which we ascribe a meaning is called a phoneme and words are made up of a series of phonemes which are joined together to create a unique-sounding collection of phonemes which everyone ascribes a meaning to. We call this collection of phonemes a word and in the truest sense of the word words have NO meaning beyond that which we, humans, agree them to have.

E.g. The word "automobile" has no objective uniqueness which associates it with a car. It could refer to anything if we all agreed that its meaning would change. So, words have meaning because we agree on their meaning. Without our agreement these collections of phonemes have no meaning. If we went back in time we could decide that the first time we saw a plane we'd not call it a plane but call it a "zoomer".

There are some caveats to do with compound words - which are very common in agglutinative languages like Germand and to a lesser extent in English "aero-plane", "auto-mobile", "sub-machine-gun" etc.

Ok, so those are the basic terms.... It gets a little more complicated when we realise that combining hermeneutics with neuro-linguistic programming ( and not in the "How to pick up any woman in 10 minutes" books which claim to channel NLP to make you irresistible to the opposite sex ( or same sex, or both if that's your thing ) sense but in the proper, psychologically researched sense of the term ) means that collections of sounds have meaning because we agree them to have meaning and that agreement on meaning comes with all manner of other, inter-related, implications ( this can be seen when we have to translate from one language into another and can get a literal translation but are told, by the translator - or have to tell others if we're translating - that the literal translation doesn't capture the entirety of what was said because a certain word carries various other connotations in the foreign language.... said connotations arising not out of the phonemes or their arrangement but out of the cultural context of the foreign country/culture etc and thus being unknowable unless that cultural context is explained to you.

That's a gross ( in the proper sense of the word not the "ooh it is yucky" sense ) example but it serves to illustrate the point. Now, unbeknownst to us all words have similar, often subconscious, connotations. Most of the time these connotations have to do with values, setting a context and/or conveying an emotional attitude.

E.g. In Ireland to call someone an informer would be one of the worst things you could ever call someone. Even the police when they refer to informers in their employ tend not to use the term. Why not? Simple, most Irish uprisings in the timeframe 1400 to 1916 were destroyed by informers who infiltrated the organisations and undermined them. So, in Ireland, saying someone "informed" on someone else carries a huge weight of emotional information conveying disapproval of the person doing the "informing" and a very real sense that they should NOT have done so.

Saying someone "passed on information", however, carries with it the sense that they didn't betray people and that what they passed on was appropriate and right. It is the phrase which is often used officially since it doesn't have the unfavourable subconscious connotations.


All cultures have similar words, phrases etc which we often don't even think about and those words/phrases influence how we interpret things ( the hermeneutics of the situation ). That's words and phrases taken care of.... Now we move on to interpretation and subconscious anchoring of entire discussions.

It is possible through the selection of words to impart the exact same information yet create entirely different emotional responses in the readers and it is possible to predict this pretty accuracetly if you've got a homogenous audience drawn from a single culture ( either born there or assimilated ) and you know the triggers for that culture. Phrasing and word selection creates subconscious associations and also anchors the discussion at a certain point and towards a certain goal. E.g. When asked "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It is very difficult to begin having a discussion about what a good relationship you and your wife have. The question anchored the discussion in the territory of either, yes, you still beat her or, no, you used to but don't anymore. Either way the subconscious anchoring among listeners even before you answer is to view you as a piece of slime who is capable of serious violence and who, if he denies the question entirely, is probably lying.


So, now on to the discussion of players, their ability and how that impacts on strategy with reference to hermeneutics, a little NLP and hermeneutics... which was why I had to do the above setup since these may not be things everyone is familiar with.


Ah, unfortunately the drought of psychotic and suicidal patients has ended. Time to go for a bit....



< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/12/2010 8:35:29 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 610
RE: The Hermeneutics of Competence.... - 9/12/2010 12:46:01 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Nemo,

the above is a promising start. Looking forward to be able to read on to see where you are going and object .

Hartwig

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 611
Attribution theory squared - 9/12/2010 11:31:40 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Nemo,

well, it looks like the drought has been replaced by a flood, so let me try to move this a bit further.

First of all, I would rather prefer to isolate any discussion on strategy (which is determined by your national goal) from the opponent (who does not really influence your national goal). IMHO the underlying strategic principles are determined by objective parameters and quite independent of the opponent in a game like AE. Proper application of basic principles shall give you appropriate results.

This is not to say work on the opponent is not an important parameter in a successful campaign – personally, I am convinced that the AI would do much better in most games if it would send the turns back as e-mail attachments of e-mails comprising a few short taunting lines that are based on a rough evaluation of major combat events (e.g. “that B17-attack must have hurt” if you just found out that your B17 force on naval attack took it on the chin without return, which a simple analysis of the combat report could show).

Hermeneutics is a way to assess your opponent (or why people are discussing "strategy" in the way they do), not strategy. And to be fair, I think one should not just put Hermeneutics alone in the middle of the ring, but also less modern (en vogue ?) concepts like cognitivism or behaviorism.

I’m sure you use elements of both in your own work with your opponent, e.g. the viewpoints “ My opponent’s mind is an information processor in a black box which should be opened and understood, so I’ll look for patterns (good old GOMS e.g., - goals, operators methods and selection rules is what is behind this acronym) and modification of patterns (aka learning) and make use of them by feeding him suitably adapted input variables” or “My opponent will be responsive to environmental stimuli, punishments and rewards, so I’ll provide such stimuli in game (sacrificing an old BB or two to create a stimulus acting in my favor) and outside of the game (“great play at XYZ” or “had to think a lot about situation at ZYX” in a comment e-mail if I think this represents an avenue which I would like my opponent to walk)”. Which of the various approaches provides the most useful output is a function of what and how you pose your question.

As a matter of fact, I think your starting point may even hint towards that what you are really planning to do here is sort of related to a –eventually double layered- application of Weiner’s attribution theory, which I would probably place more in the cognivite context. But hey, I'm an amateur, you are the professional.

Briefly, according to attribution theory you observe behavior, you determine said behavior to be intentional and you attribute the behavior to internal and external causes. This is in a way what happens in an AAR. Specifically, the assignment of internal and external causes that can be observed is very “attributional”. Successful Op by my opponent = external locus of control (luck). Failed op by myself = external locus of control (situational factor working against me). Failed op by my opponent = internal locus of control (his gameplay is not up to par). Successful op by me = internal locus of control (my supreme skills).

Now, you seem to switch to a meta layer and observe the behavior of the participants, determine the behavior to be intentional and attribute the behavior to internal and external causes in order to analyze the achievements of contributions made.

Well, the floor shall be yours again, I’ll end my interlude and give you a chance to elaborate what you really intended to say. This post is a bit hasty, but your choice of topic was just too tempting…

Oh, and have I stopped beating my wife? No, her chess skills have not improved sufficiently yet. Anchor is aweigh.

In most situations context is not predetermined, but can be influenced, at least as long as one doesn’t get caught in the feeling how embarrassing the situation one is in is but keeps thinking.

Hartwig

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 612
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 12:54:45 AM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow
and outside of the game (“great play at XYZ” or “had to think a lot about situation at ZYX” in a comment e-mail if I think this represents an avenue which I would like my opponent to walk)”.


Yes but is that ethical? So long as both parties understand that the email communication is "banter" then yes, but if your opponent thinks you are providing honest insight then maybe not. It is an avenue that can bring advantage but only if your opponent is unaware of the rules you are using. Besides if your opponent realises your duplicity then you may be the one losing out. Mind games, what fun.

Sorry for the derail Nemo. Great AAR and insight into the game.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 613
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 3:50:02 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Busy indeed, one newly diagnosed violent schizophrenic, a woman who tried to kill herself after realising the man she loves really ISN'T going to leave his new partner and 8 month old child to return to her, a very strange man who wanted a genital examination and sexually assaulted the doctor who tried to give it to him in good faith, a nice Hindu girl who had her Muslim boyfriend break up with her but cannot tell her parents why she is so sad since they'd never approve of interfaith dating, a young guy so high on drugs he punched one of my nurses in the face in between being held down by five security guards ( he'll be going to court for that ), a young guy who was so drunk that the ER doctor thought he was psychotic, he's not, he's just an alcoholic and a drunk middle-aged woman who decided tonight was the night to open her veins and assault the staff trying to help her. All sorted now though, one way or the other. Back to more relaxing topics.


Context is what you accept it to be.... What you accept it to be is a mix between your society's viewpoint and the extent to which you adhere to that viewpoint. Eating the dead is, in western society viewed as abhorrent but in the case of being shipwrecked at sea with no other food sources society can have allowances be made where such cannibalism allows survival, in certain tribes it is a means of gaining the strength of the dead and in Papua New Guinea it was a symbolic way of incorporating the dead into following generations - and coincidentally providing the first testbed for the transmission of prions which now cause such trouble via CJD.

Context, which we often take to be immutable is actually a social construct and, as such, responsive to the social mores of the time and situation. Social mores are not fixed and change slowly over time or rapidly with extreme circumstances.... Also there are individuals to which social mores do not apply. Some are relatively socially unacceptable - sociopaths whilst others are more socially acceptable and merely an extreme part of the social spectrum in which they view themselves as being in the middle of a group which exists along one aspect of the social spectrum trading their belonging to a large group for a sense of belonging to a more circumscribed group which exists along a smaller, more extreme portion of the spectrum.
E.g. Emos, nihilists, hedonists etc.

So, reject society's assertion that wife-beating is bad and the question above may not engender any sense of shame in one. It should, however, activate a sense of self-preservation as with intelligence one would realise that society frowns on those who do so it is better not to admit it anymore. That sense of self-preservation and awareness of social norms is how sociopaths can swim through the shoals of society, appearing superficially charming whilst ignoring social constructs and mores. If they internalise a strong external moral code they are useful to society and can fill reasonable positions in business, law enforcement, the army etc. Otherwise they can become marginalised, thrown back on their own morality - which is pretty non-existent and begin doing whatever it is they find pleases them ( which can lead to actions abhorrent to the rest of society ).

Well, 4am, time for bed. I'll finish the original post tomorrow.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 614
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 12:56:54 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Busy indeed, one newly diagnosed violent schizophrenic, a woman who tried to kill herself after realising the man she loves really ISN'T going to leave his new partner and 8 month old child to return to her, a very strange man who wanted a genital examination and sexually assaulted the doctor who tried to give it to him in good faith, a nice Hindu girl who had her Muslim boyfriend break up with her but cannot tell her parents why she is so sad since they'd never approve of interfaith dating, a young guy so high on drugs he punched one of my nurses in the face in between being held down by five security guards ( he'll be going to court for that ), a young guy who was so drunk that the ER doctor thought he was psychotic, he's not, he's just an alcoholic and a drunk middle-aged woman who decided tonight was the night to open her veins and assault the staff trying to help her. All sorted now though, one way or the other. Back to more relaxing topics.


I ran a day treatment for over 5 years with schizophrenic adults. They would be fine that day and that night I would be at the ER to see them totally de-compensated. They would not know who I was and talking some stuff that would make the best Hollywood writers grab for a pen and paper as their thoughts would be so strange. Too many of the ER doctors I have to deal with want nothing to do with any patients with any sort of mental health issues. Sad, but true.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 615
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 1:27:45 PM   
gladiatt


Posts: 2576
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
I ran a day treatment for over 5 years with schizophrenic adults. They would be fine that day and that night I would be at the ER to see them totally de-compensated. They would not know who I was and talking some stuff that would make the best Hollywood writers grab for a pen and paper as their thoughts would be so strange. Too many of the ER doctors I have to deal with want nothing to do with any patients with any sort of mental health issues. Sad, but true.


Patient with both mental health issues and body health issues are victims, and even if many people tend to avoid them, they should be helped and should be apologized if the need arise. Their life seems to be like a nightmare (more or less).
And even more if these patients are closely related too you.
Sorry to highjack this AAR ...going back to silence

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 616
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 10:41:27 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Gladiatt, hijack away....

In my experience people with mental illness are not just like us they ARE us. We all have the potential to have mental illness at some point in our lives. People with mental illness aren't mad or crazy, they just have a non-physical injury.

As to schizophrenics... I know many whose symptoms are well-controlled with medications and have families, jobs and satisfying lives. Some remain ill, often when there's a very high genetic load or they imbibe alcohol or drugs or are non-compliant with the meds. I have known some to be violent BUT proportionally speaking people who drink or have done drugs are many, many times more likely to be violent to my nurses or myself. I've had several attacks on staff and not a single one was ever perpetrated by a schizophrenic. Most of the staff I've had attacked when I was working were attacked by alcoholics or people coming down from cocaine or benzodiazepines.

People seem to have the idea that a schizophrenic can "flip" at a moment's notice and that simply isn't the case from what I can see. I think that almost invariably all anyone wants is to be listened to and heard ( those are two separate things ). I've found that when I meet them and tell them that I'll listen and hear but reserve the right to disagree the vast majority of the time people open up, talk and are appreciative of the sensation of having their opinions and thoughts listened to - even if, in the end, I disagree with their interpretation of events/ their paranoia etc.

When a schizophrenic suddenly "flips" it is, in my experience, actually the result of a long process of becoming gradually more unwell but it not being noticed by those around them. With sensitive enough antennae I think any such deterioration can be spotted. Unfortunately often society has very little contact with these people and so signs are missed or doctors are too busy to sit down and chat with them for an hour or two and really get to know what makes them tick so they can spot the subtle precursors. When I worked in ER in a different life there was a competition to see who could get rid of the psych patient quicker than anyone else. If that were run with surgical patients people would be struck off. That's indicative of the attitude some have. To be fair though it is changing and I find that engaging with the ER staff and explaining why their assessment was right or wrong and taking the time to congratulate them for an appropriate referral and not saying anything about slightly inappropriate ones ( since I don't want to dissuade them from engaging with me in my "teaching ER docs a bit of psych 101" ) tends to yield results. Over the months that they work in ER you see them gradually getting a bit more competent, getting a bit more sympathetic to real psych issues and beginning to treat them as more than "something to be referred on ASAP without any appropriate investigations etc etc".


As to apologising for them... It depends on the reason for the issue. I had a sub-18 year old who assaulted a nurse yesterday cause he was high on herbal cocaine and a few other illegal things. He is going to be charged with assault because taking drugs and becoming unwell is pretty much the same as drink driving. He was responsible for taking the substance which caused the impairment and thus bears the consequences. When people are actually really unwell and haven't taken drink or drugs to bring on that altered state then, obviously, allowances must be made.


As to patients being closely related.... I state again, WE are them, or at least have the potential to be them if the die fall the wrong way.


As to their life being like a nightmare.... I'm not so sure about that. Some people who do everything right ( no drink, no drugs etc ) are still very treatment resistant but most people with mental health issues can, with the appropriate care and a good relationship with their doctor, do very well indeed and live pretty normal lives in much the same way as someone with hypertension can live a normal life so long as they take their meds and don't eat too much salt etc etc.


We need to get away from the bedlam idea of psychiatry and realise that most people with mental health issues, even schizophrenia have the potential to live lives which are, to them, fulfilling and happy. They may need a bit of help to do that but that's ok. I don't think things are as bleak as the public perception appears to be.


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to gladiatt)
Post #: 617
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 11:38:35 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Yes but is that ethical? So long as both parties understand that the email communication is "banter" then yes, but if your opponent thinks you are providing honest insight then maybe not. It is an avenue that can bring advantage but only if your opponent is unaware of the rules you are using. Besides if your opponent realises your duplicity then you may be the one losing out. Mind games, what fun.

Sorry for the derail Nemo. Great AAR and insight into the game.


PresterJohn,
Is that ethical - now that’s an anchor point for a discussion.

Let’s start by saying that at least in Germany a considerable number of people would say playing a wargame is unethical to start with. Later in this post we will see why this is the case.

Next, I’d like to point out that what you seem to think may not be ethical is being done (see previous discussions in this great AAR, where I think it has been applied and its application was discussed) and that I would very much like to contribute to an awareness that it is being done and foster thoughts about how it may be done. Let me quote our host, who (correct me if I’m wrong) stated repeatedly in other AARs “Why, always ask yourself why.” That is not limited to on-map events.

Let’s continue by thinking a bit about the (cognitivist and behavioralist) examples/approaches I presented. If there was not something that could be interpreted as a success or a complicated situation, clearly the comment would not work. There is no false information that is provided – so the simple “he’s lying” won’t stick. A “he lies” situation might emerge only if you believe assume that a) you are obliged to inform your opponent truthfully about your own plans, actions and force dispositions if he happens to ask (which I deny) or b) if there is an agreement to share insight into game mechanics (where in most cases a wrong answer is easily identified if your own handling differs from it, so it simply does not make much sense to do that). If you ask the question “are you reinforcing Singapore or evacuating” you are not really entitled to a true answer IMHO. What is done is influencing the interpretation of information, modifying the filters – work on understanding the “Orient” part of your opponent’s OODA loop.

In contrast, you do lie if playing Japan you set a unit to prep for a target that you never intend to attack, hoping for Allied intel to pass it on, or if you pile a ton of tiny fragment units on a base to obtain a deterrent read for cursor intel, or... Heck, the next unethical thing you are going to do is build a camp of rubber soldiers near Dover or parade the same tanks several times through the streets of Tripolis to convey false information!

All of the above is intentional misrepresentation or concealment of information in order to deceive or mislead – or, in other words plain simple fraud – and that cannot possibly constitute good gameplay – or can it in view of the fact that in reality deceptions like these are considered to represent great examples of military craftsmanship and form a cornerstone of successful military operations?

In my opinion, this AAR is one of numerous examples provided by Nemo for quite different games that application of what works in real life will work in the game: a sound strategic approach and application of OODA-loop theory.

This is exactly the reasons why some people believe wargames to be unethical – you practice (and reward by “victory”) methods that are out of bounds unless it is war. Problem is of course that this is not limited to wargames in the strict sense.

Do you play chess ? Would it be a sign of good play offering your opponent to take your Queen, knowing that if he does three moves later you can checkmate him? If you would present him with a business opportunity, knowing full well that if he accepts this, he will be bankrupt in three years, this may constitute fraud – highly unethical.

In general, the thing you need to do in order to win a competition against an opponent is make your own OODA loop work faster than your opponent’s and preferably cause your opponent’s OODA loop to collapse –which, as was pointed out it this great AAR, has happened in Nemo’s opinion. If you accept that, then you immediately arrive at the fact that you are in fact playing a mind game. Quoting John Boyd:

“In order to win, we should operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries--or, better yet, get inside [the] adversary's Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action time cycle or loop. ... Such activity will make us appear ambiguous (unpredictable) thereby generate confusion and disorder among our adversaries--since our adversaries will be unable to generate mental images or pictures that agree with the menacing as well as faster transient rhythm or patterns they are competing against.”

So, the question is whether it is unethical to apply these real life principles how to win in a game and sportsmenship would require limitation to a comparison of the frequencies of the OODA loops while not getting inside it. If it is, as soon as you start making deceptive moves on the map you start being unethical, as you start messing with the “Observation”.

As always, just my thoughts.

Hartwig

(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 618
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/13/2010 11:51:38 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I'm going to ask my university if this can be taken as a degree xDDDDD.

Nice questions I see here !!!!

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 619
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/14/2010 12:06:50 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I can no more wrap my head around this discussion than I can fathom how Nemo is holding - and invading out FROM - the DEI in early 1942 in Scenario Two.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 620
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/14/2010 12:18:17 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline 		I may have missed it, is the KB still intact at this point in this AAR ?

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 621
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/14/2010 12:45:46 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline 		An interesting discussion for me on many layers.

While the sideline is interesting I think getting back to what Nemo was/is going to write is something I'm looking forward to...

I suspect though that it will cover the use of language and how that shapes/supports one’s own side thoughts and actions, and also shapes your opponent (being PSYOPS trained I subscribe to this a lot).

Conducting both actions, and the words they use (understanding their cultural context), tells you a lot about the person the player thinks they are. How they respond tells you how they actually are.

Of course if the player is self aware enough, they can in return act and talk in a way to shape back in return... this can be a very effective strategy, acting as you expect the other player expects you to act, then changing course creates cognitive dissonance (ala "Confusion") and a loss of confidence which enables you to take the initiative.

This is what I find intellectually interesting about wargaming, and why I don't play against the AI.Wars are one or lost in the mind of the enemy commander. Killing people is "merely" a way of influencing the enemy commanders mind.

Scary isn't it.
CheersRob





_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 622
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/15/2010 7:52:50 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

First of all, I would rather prefer to isolate any discussion on strategy (which is determined by your national goal) from the opponent (who does not really influence your national goal). IMHO the underlying strategic principles are determined by objective parameters and quite independent of the opponent in a game like AE. Proper application of basic principles shall give you appropriate results.

Hartwig



Sorry Hartwig, but on this point I don't agree with your comment that it is "quite independent of the opponent in a game like AE".

Firstly, in AE the most basic issue to be determined even before the first turn is inputted, is the basis for play. Will victory be determined by VPs or some other criterion? Are HRs necessary and if so, what will they cover? Which scenario will be used and will there be any modifications made to it? These are all subjective matters which are greatly affected by your opponent's views.

Secondly, there are many different paths to victory. The efficacy of each one is very dependent on the qualities and skill of your opponent. Opponents usually have marked preferences in play style. One opponent could be very good in the air but relatively poor at naval operations, or dislike greatly land combat in China. Or perhaps not very good at logistics. There is great value in forcing your opponent to play what he does not want to play as this will increase the odds of him making unforced errors (to use a tennis concept).

Thirdly, the choice of strategy is dependent also on the dispositions made by your opponent. What exactly is the value of pursuing a strategy which on your objective grounds (ie dismissing your opponent as a key faactor) is the best but is actually failing due to timely actions by your opponent. Just because it was the "correct" strategy, there is no need to reinforce failure.

I don't know if you have been following Q-Ball's current AAR, but I would suggest you read my posts #38 and #84 in that AAR as I think they are pertinent to my argument here. Nemo's posts in that AAR are also relevant to this discussion.

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 623
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/16/2010 11:01:56 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Alfred,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Sorry Hartwig, but on this point I don't agree with your comment that it is "quite independent of the opponent in a game like AE".
...
Alfred


nothing to be sorry about, as always your comments is stimulating thought and will in the end lead to my improved comprehension of the aspects involved. Unfortunately, I am virtually out of time right now till Sunday or so. Will read up on your links and get back later.

As a short comment "from the stomach", I would most likely have assigned the VP question to the definition of the national goal and would argue that you have to work out a strategy ahead of beginning the game, which will be the only way to assess the dispositions and qualities of your opponent. I agree that strategy is to be continuously adapted, but as a function of results (which of course may be partly influenced by the opponent) rather than the opponent.

My feeling is that too strong a connection to the opponent leads to too much influence of tactical considerations (which are very dependent on your opponent).

But all of these remarks lack depth. I'll work with the links you provided and get back to the subject.

Hartwig

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 9/16/2010 11:02:20 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 624
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/16/2010 11:08:50 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
While the sideline is interesting I think getting back to what Nemo was/is going to write is something I'm looking forward to...


+1



(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 625
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/17/2010 3:46:36 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Welcome Canoerebel,

quote:

I can no more wrap my head around this discussion than I can fathom how Nemo is holding - and invading out FROM - the DEI in early 1942 in Scenario Two.


Simple enough. I'm not playing the map or the OOB as using those parameters such actions are rather difficult. Instead I'm mostly playing the person. Once you can befuddle the person all of the forces in the world won't do much good as they'll be misdeployed and one guy with a dagger in the right place at the right time is better than 100 divisions all gives the wrong objectives.



Stuman,
Yes, I don't believe I've launched a single attack on KB. I simply don't have the capability at this point in time to break their defences with brute force. I could conceive of a plan in which strong CAP over juice Allied targets would draw KB in to overcommit to escort missions with its few Zeroes ( about 120 within KB ) and then strike and overpower their own limited CAP but that isn't necessary for my current strategy to win. In my game vs Damian I first began experimenting with a play style which allowed advances without actually destroying KB and in the face of a far superior IJN. I found that such a strategy - advancing in the face of superior IJN and IJNAF forces - was tough but interesting and given my philosophy of play ( in terms of playing vs my own expectations vs playing to win or anything like that ) was a nice challenge. As such I was happy enough to come up with a strategy for this game which didn't seek to destroy KB early on but preserved it so that the challenge of advancing through late-42 and 43 ( if the game got that far ) would be preserved.

So, KB is fully intact but I've expended great effort trying to make it expend its airgroups and be misdeployed and, more latterly, trying to get MIke to engage in a "paralysis of over-analysis". I think KB's lack of action over the past 2 months has been a result of the relative success of that strategy. Mike may, of course, be just biding his time but I think he is unsure of how and when to best commit KB right now and he knows that if he commits it to the wrong area ( wrong being an area in which I'm luring him in and have lots of CAP ) then I'll maul his airgroups and he won't be able to commit KB for another 2 to 3 months as he rebuilds his airgroups. I think that knowledge/fear is causing him to hold it back when, really, IMO he should commit it.

Essentially we both know I can't destroy KB if it commits BUT I do believe I can culminate it and prevent it being useful for 2 to 3 months afterward. Mike doesn't want to allow me to culminate it as he knows I'll take advantage of that. I think he's going with a fleet in being approach right now combined with a few very low-risk forays to pick off reinforcements to Mindanao.



jrcar,
Ah, PsyOps eh? Interesting. I've not read Australian manuals of PsyOps but I've read a few of the US and UK ones and they are quite interesting. There were obviously some very learned psychiatrists/psychologists contributing to some of what is in there. I think there was a lack of emphasis on cultural differentiation of conscious and subconscious triggers and a general lack of focus on the subconscious which was unfortunate. It is more difficult to manipulate the subconscious but since such an attack manages to avoid most of the conscious defence mechanisms and can actually take advantage of subconscious mechanisms I think it is a very effective means of approach.

From what I've heard though these early millenial manuals are no longer indicative of the sophistication of some ( although by no means all ) of the approaches... and of course some of the nice theory I read ignores the reality that it can be tough to manipulate the subconscious of people who can't even read the pamphlets you generate and whose only knowledge of the one book they'll ever read may be generated through oral briefing by someone who has no interest in reading or otherwise coming into contact with your viewpoint/psyops pamphlets. Of course it seems some long-term work is being done to address this including, I am sure, many of the means of political/religious and military opposition leader selection through the acceptance and declination of targetted assasinations by one's own forces and proxies/deniable forces which proved so successful with the British in Northern Ireland since it appears to have been adopted as unacknowledged policy ( since at least the 70s although I don't pay too much attention to the ins and outs of that quiescent area so it could have begun a bit earlier ). There, I think that's sufficiently clear and yet obfuscated to make a good middle line for a public forum.

quote:

Conducting both actions, and the words they use (understanding their cultural context), tells you a lot about the person the player thinks they are. How they respond tells you how they actually are.


True. I'd just add two layers to that.
1. Seeing how they act when they know they are being observed/ the words they use when trying to play mindgames back with you tells you a lot about how they would LIKE to be perceived by others.
2. The layer you have where their actions tell a lot about who they think they are. - often layer 1 is made up of mostly layer 2 with a few small changes to their behaviour to make their actions more compatible with the reaction they wish to engender than their baseline personality would, in their opinion, generate.
3. How they respond tells you how they actually are.
4. The gap between 1 and 3 can be highlighted to create the sensation of an emotional assault on the individual. Such perceived assault can bring about either psychological collapse or anger - both of which are useful emotions to be able to engender to create errors of decision-making which can be goaded, guided and used to "lead" the individual whilst allowing them the sensation that their choices are their own.
4b. The gap between 1 and 2 can be used to generate a conscious cognitive dissonance.

Of course doing 4 or 4b is, in ordinary society, viewed as highly aggressive and abusive behaviour and if done on forums is often construed as an assault even if all you're doing is pointed out the difference between words, actual actions, expressed reasons for doing/saying something and the observable reasons which actually drive a person. It is somewhat amusing to read some of the sweep threads with that in mind. There's a lot of ego-gratification and ego-syntonic commentary going on their which has lost all objectivity and views any ego-dystonic responses as being personal assaults since those responses aren't responses to objective postings but ego-syntonic commentaries which are intensely personally, emotionally, valued - whether that's right or not.


re: behaving as one is expected to and then shifting to create cognitive dissonance.
Very true. Definitely that's a well-trodden path in high level chess and also warfare but I don't see too much sign of it in wargaming circles - which is a pity. Even when playing professionals most of the time they stick to doctrinal solutions.... Even if, as the Soviets used to say, the only reliable thing about American doctrine is that they never read the Fing manual .
I think that the best that can be achieved in a gaming situation like AE is a sort of constructive unpredictability in which a general approach is expected but there's a general expectation that while that general approach will hold true the manner of its application is quite unpredictable. I, for example, am on record as stating that I think the perception of my play ( even in spit of these AARs) is flawed and that I amn't nearly as unpredictable or aggressive as people think. I actually think I'm quite conservative in my play in a lot of ways.


quote:

Wars are one or lost in the mind of the enemy commander. Killing people is "merely" a way of influencing the enemy commanders mind.


True, very true.

One interesting sidepoint to that is that the study of loss rates in combat has shown that the magical figure is about 30%. Kill 30% of a force in a short enough period of time or convince it that its local battle is lost and the overall force usually decides to pack it in and retreat from the field of battle. I strongly suggest a re-reading of Alexander and Hannibal's campaigns with that figure in mind.

Basically it explains why a Macedonian/Carthaginian force which was outnumbered could still defeat a much larger force. I'll use the example of Alexander as the force disparity in terms of numbers and quality s most marked there.
Persians: LOTS more men.
Macedonians: Far better defensive and offensive equipment. The sarissa might have just been an ueber-long spear but it was the BEST ueber-long spear of its time.

ANyways, in armies of the time you could only achieve great rates of killing by smashing one group of men into another and letting them butcher eachother with spear and sword ( and hand and teeth etc when the time came ). Missile weaponry ( archers, slingers etc ) just didn't generate the necessary casualties to win a battle without close combat occurring. In close combat a unit of a specified frontage ( say 100 metres ) would make contact with another force of the same frontage ( this wouldn't always be so but the Macedonians had flank guards to prevent the overlaps being too dangerous etc and this is only a broad example for those who aren't familiar with Macedonian vs Persian battles. I'm not going to go into how the Macedonian battle deployment presaged the Roman checkerboard of cohorts as that's not essential right now even though it is interesting in its own right. ).

Individual men have roughly the same width, especially in that time prior to rampant obesity. So a frontage of 100 metres per side would result in pretty much the same number of men facing off against eachother. Lets keep it simple and say 100 men can occupy 100m of frontage.

With a phalanx 20 men deep and an army of 20,000 you can make a front 1km long which makes a frontage of 1000 men. This can, so long as you pick your ground well, disrupt the enemy flanks and prevent their cavalry from winning the cavalry battle ( note a bit of a theme here with Alexander's battles and tactics? Yeah, I thought so. ) meet an enemy frontage of about 1,000 metres/men.

Persians were outfitted for mobile battles and most of their soldiers were light infantry to light-medium infantry. Macedonians were heavy to ultra-heavy infantry in the terms of the time. As such if Persians came at them one at a time in a line a Macedonian could be expected to cut them down one after another- a bit of bad luck, slipping on entrails and some missile kills would result in Macedonian losses but unless a phalanx was flanked or otherwise disrupted by, for example, chariots or elephants used to break the cohesion of such a force ( see a pattern of his opponents here ) just prior to contact with the Persian infantry.

So, when 20,000 Greek faced 200,000 Persians so long as they could, through choosing the ground, winning the cavalry battle and thus the flank battle the Greeks could create a situation in which in frontal combat their front 1,000 men faced 200 groups of Persians each 1,000 strong. Now, you may think that this is an impossible task as even the best warriors arm will grow tired after slaying the first 10 or 20 men.

In reality the 30% figure means that as soon as 30% of a force breaks the rest of it breaks. So, with good generaliship Alexander would ensure his main body would be engaged in frontal combat and would "tie up" tens of times its number of troops. Despite the numerical disparity, say 20,000 Macedonians vs 140,000 Persians in the frontal main body fight that would actually devolve into a series of 1,000 Macedonian vs 1,000 Persians battles spread over time ( this isn't entirely accurate because of the effect of the Sarissa but this is a forum and not a degree course so I amn't going to go into that ) in which the Macedonians could expect utterly disproportionate kill rates - quite possibly on the order of 100 to 1 for the initial hour or two of battle based on historical battle reports. Over time however sheer wear and tear would wear the Macedonians down and they'd be wiped out long before each Macedonian actually killed 100 men.

In the meantime however Alexander took his best forces with the highest potential for rapid casualty-generation and shock effect and used them to generate a rapid rate of casualties and shock among a small portion of the enemy force ( the cavalry and one flank guard force ). All he had to do to win the battle was actually beat this force - against significantly lower odds than his main body faced and the overall numbers of the battle would lead people to believe. Once he had used shock and a high casualty rate to convince the flank force to break this force would run and be cut to pieces by his cavalry ( cavalry and armies do most of their killing once the enemy's back is turned and they are trying to run away. War isn't fair or nice. ). The main body would be "transmitted" this shock and aware that the force to its flank is getting massacred. It doesn't compare the losses to the overall Persian force but each soldier and group of soldiers there compares it to the Persian force within eyeshot ( that's crucial ). With the entire flank in disarray once the magic 30% figure of troops within eyesight are killed or running that Persian in the main body begins to consider running.... and so the rout spreads and the entire army begins to disengage and then rout.

The basic point though is that for Alexander to beat a Persian army ten times his size he only needed to break a small portion of it by inflicting a high casualty rate over a short period of time. He could then cause a cascading rout which wouldn't be recoverable as his troops WOULD be butchering the enemy as they fled and ensuring that their actual casualties ( overall ) would be hitting or exceeding 30%.

So, in reality Alexander really rarely beat a full Persian force. What he did was stalemated most of the Persians with a small frontal battle and then hit a flank and caused a cascading failure of belief from that flank along the Persian front.

I don't think you can understand Alexander or Barca's victories without understanding psychology. It was crucial to why they won vs superior forces. You can also see command paralysis in Darius and a few of the Romans who went in against Barca. Hell, in one famous Carthaginian vs Rome battle the Roman consuls DID actually achieve the Roman objective during the battle. They also both died ( IIRC ) with one of them choosing to enter the fray to find a good death rather than actually exercise command once things went south. Most of their army died with them... even despite the fact that the army achieved its normal battle objective which normally guaranteed them victory.

I think a re-reading of Alexander and Hannibal ( and if you want to be really ambitious Xenophon.... and if you want a laugh at how OODA and preconceptionn can paralyse an otherwise intelligent man read about Crassus at Carrhae - "I'm sure they'll run out of arrows". Indeed, LOL! ) with OODA and the psychology of loss rates and loss %s as well as the transmission of panic being borne in mind would be very interesting.

Apologies for the delay in completing the other bits but work was rough. 4 on calls in 7 days led to a 113hr working week and I'm no longer inured to those hours. On the plus side I found out today that the research I want to do in combat-derived PTSD and prediction of same looks like it will be feasible. A few more hurdles to jump but Im really looking forward to it - especially since it could lead to better pre-deployment screening for vulnerability factors and better allocation of resilience-increasing resources intra-theatre and post-deployment. That should help a lot of people in time to come. *fingers crossed*

Anyways, this weekend I'll rabbit on about hermeneutics and the anchoring of discussions as well as syntonic and dystonic aspects and dissonance.



< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/17/2010 4:03:39 AM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 626
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/17/2010 8:30:39 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

So, KB is fully intact but I've expended great effort trying to make it expend its airgroups and be misdeployed and, more latterly, trying to get MIke to engage in a "paralysis of over-analysis". I think KB's lack of action over the past 2 months has been a result of the relative success of that strategy.


I have to agree -- it seems to me the best historical analogy is McClellan after the Seven Day's Battles. Mike still has the superior force, but he has found stiff resistance in several places, and so seems to think that there must be still more units elsewhere. (Not realizing the lower caliber of such units.)

Kudos on an excellent PsyOps campaign!

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 627
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/18/2010 12:01:21 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		From the outside looking in, this is fascinating. I have no training in psychology at all and didn't even take Psych 101 in college (went the Economics route for that part of my education). So much of what is being said here is over my head. That said, Nemo and Capt. Harlock have done an excellant job explaining their ideas to a point where I have a basic understanding of the premise. Even so, the finer nuances are lost on me and I suspect many others.

Still, when I put this into the perspective of playing the game, some thoughts arise. The first is that there is a tremendous variance on how people play this game. Ultimately we all play for enjoyment; it is afterall a "game". That said, the compexiity of AE and WiTP before it make the "play" much different than most games. There are players who are more interested in pushing the system to the edge of the envelope more than they are interested in the results. These are the type of players who make counterintuitive moves that ignore the larger strategic picture. They have no "national" goal other than to see how much they can "mess" with their opponent. These players will often undertake highly risky operations with little chance of success just for the sheer joy of seeing if they can pull it off. Please do not take that as a criticism of such play. It certainly can make for interesting games. When a game is played with this approach, broader strategic goals do become less important. I also suspect that such a player has a lot of fun playing AE.

Other players play within the historical context. Admittedly, this constraint is self imposed as there is no mandate from either the game rules nor the mechanics that requires such an approach. This is, however, a historically based game. For some, myself included, there is greater enjoyment when playing if they see the problems and challenges before them though the eyes of the historical commanders. Some may refer to this type of player as "risk adverse". There may be a lot of truth in that, but I would counter that some of timidity comes from a historical perspective. Certainly the Allied commanders in the RL PTO knew that public reaction to a strategic defeat could not be discounted. I do not think the Japanese commanders were completely immune to outside pressures either even if it was to a much lesser degree.

Also, individual player ability enters the equation. While I would say that most players have a basic understanding of the game systems, there is a great disparity as to the in depth knowledge of how the game mechanics work. Failure to comprehend some of the finer points of AE can lead to disaster even when you have the strategic/tactical advantage. This factor alone can lead to atypical results in game play. Often we will see claims of a "bug" or even accusations of "gamey" play when the truth of the matter is the problem lies in the neural pathways attached to the finger pushing the mouse button. Using college football as a model: early in the season the major programs usually play the lesser programs. In terms of talent and ability of the players, the outcomes of these games should be a foregone conclusion. Yet every year we see a few "upsets". While some times these outcomes can be attributed to "the ball bouncing the right way", usually it falls to poor coaching or execution. In other words, the loser had superior forces and resources available to him but failed to use them properly.

My point being that so many factors enter into the equation when playing a game that is this complex. I think Nemo's game is living proof that every operational plan requires some level of cooperation on your opponent's part in order to be successful. In other words, every plan has a level of expectation as to how the enemy will respond built into it. If the enemy fails to "play along", we now enter into the realm of OODA loops. The ultimate outcome then centers on which OODA loop is best able to handle the stress.

It certainly was not in either the British nor Dutch plans to surrender Malaya and the DEI without a fight. They lost because the Japanese had better forces available to them and used them properly. The lack of a decent command structure and to a large extent appreciation of the Japanese forces arrayed against them led to the fall of these areas. AE allows us to rectify these shortcomings and we see the results in Nemo's game. I think Brave Sir Robin has taken a major hit, and the player delivering that blow is playing the Allied side. I am quite sure that the more astute players will take the success displayed in this game and modify their approaches in the future. I would not be at all surprised to see the "Palembang Gambit" become common where the Japanese make a dash to Sumatra in the first week of the war. Too much is at risk to let the Allies build up southern Sumatra as Nemo has quite expertly done

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 628
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/18/2010 12:05:33 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline 		Actually most of the good ideas come from commercial PsyOps, otherwise known as marketing :) The basics are the same, understand your message, understand your target audience, develop a means of presenting your message, monitor and provide a feedback loop to refine your message. Repeat.

I think some of the problem is we go in with a Western expectation of how we deliver a message, usually mass media like TV in particular, 'cause that is how it is done... to a largely homogenous population (although marketing Gurus will tell you western societies are incredibly complex as well, socio-economic, religious, ethnicity. The reality of many of these societies is they are illiterate (but that does NOT equate to stupid), very complex at a mico level (I.e each village is different) and it is hard to get a message in...

Paper and personal contact is the best. Every action you do is PsyOps/Marketing. You are right about the sub-conscious triggers, it takes a lot of research and model-test-model which is hard to do in a mere 9 month rotation (frankly as I an ex-soldier and a family person 9 months is too long, but far too short for this type of operation).

I'm no longer current in this sphere and haven't been for ten years. I haven't been involved with any of the middle east actions, and I don't envy the people who have to deal with it.

I'm still heavily involved in marketing, now convincing Army about the benefits of simulation... not sure if that is easier or harder!

Cheers
Rob


quote:

jrcar,
Ah, PsyOps eh? Interesting. I've not read Australian manuals of PsyOps but I've read a few of the US and UK ones and they are quite interesting. There were obviously some very learned psychiatrists/psychologists contributing to some of what is in there. I think there was a lack of emphasis on cultural differentiation of conscious and subconscious triggers and a general lack of focus on the subconscious which was unfortunate. It is more difficult to manipulate the subconscious but since such an attack manages to avoid most of the conscious defence mechanisms and can actually take advantage of subconscious mechanisms I think it is a very effective means of approach.

From what I've heard though these early millenial manuals are no longer indicative of the sophistication of some ( although by no means all ) of the approaches... and of course some of the nice theory I read ignores the reality that it can be tough to manipulate the subconscious of people who can't even read the pamphlets you generate and whose only knowledge of the one book they'll ever read may be generated through oral briefing by someone who has no interest in reading or otherwise coming into contact with your viewpoint/psyops pamphlets. Of course it seems some long-term work is being done to address this including, I am sure, many of the means of political/religious and military opposition leader selection through the acceptance and declination of targetted assasinations by one's own forces and proxies/deniable forces which proved so successful with the British in Northern Ireland since it appears to have been adopted as unacknowledged policy ( since at least the 70s although I don't pay too much attention to the ins and outs of that quiescent area so it could have begun a bit earlier ). There, I think that's sufficiently clear and yet obfuscated to make a good middle line for a public forum.


_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 629
Back to the day job... - 9/18/2010 3:05:51 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 21, 42

It looks like I'll be ready to strike Singapore by the end of the month. I have about 3 days worth of work before Djambi reaches Level 3 AND today I showed that my planes could sweep Singers even at extended range using drop tanks. I have almost 150 torpedo bombers ni range of Singapore and expect them to make pretty short work of the enemy shipping there. I'll take losses to the torpedo bombers but Avengers will be arriving in May and allow me to replace many of them.

The B-17s will go after the airfield and then I think I'll split the medium bombers 50/50. Divebombers will be tasked with hitting the shipping. If it flies properly it should be a pretty impressive show of force for Mike.


In the air the battles in the air over northern Sumatra yesterday saw 21 IJAAF bombers downed in return for a total of 9 Allied planes ( 7 of them ops losses ).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Manado at 75,99, Range 8,000 Yards

Well, the IJN is nicely out of position. I have been leaving some AKs in Manado to draw KB and SC TFs and today they struck. It was a very strong force but one my RN and USN detachments can handle in the future once all the upgrades are done. In the fullness of time once I can mount a suitable CAP ( about 200 fighters ) at Manado I'll happily commit the necessary BBs to cover Manado and the reinforcement convoys to Mindanao.

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Ise
CA Ashigara
CA Suzuya
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Nagara
CL Abukuma
CL Kiso
CL Kitakami
CL Tenryu
DD Yukikaze
DD Hayashio
DD Amatsukaze
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Murasame
DD Harusame
DD Samidare
DD Umikaze
DD Yugure
DD Ayanami
DD Tadeshiwa

2 BB, 4 CA, 5 CL and 11 DDs. He must have been expecting heavy opposition. Instead he just butchered a dozen expendable ships which were waiting for Manado to become a level 3 port so they could unload motorised support and engineer vehicles. Everything else is already ashore and building Manado up nicely.

Allied Ships
AM Whippoorwill, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
AP Tasker H. Bliss, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Almaack, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Peter Kerr, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
xAK Wallingford, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Am. Builder, Shell hits 7, and is sunk
xAK Am. Packer, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
xAK Am. Press, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Red Jacket, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Mount McKinley, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Hosang, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
xAK Indira, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
CM Gouden Leeuw, Shell hits 6, and is sunk


Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 244 (223 destroyed, 21 disabled)



Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 32% moonlight: 8,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 8,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 8,000 yards
Allied ships attempt to get underway
BB Mutsu engages CM Gouden Leeuw at 8,000 yards
CM Gouden Leeuw sunk by BB Mutsu at 8,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages AP Tasker H. Bliss at 8,000 yards
AP Tasker H. Bliss sunk by CA Ashigara at 8,000 yards
DD Ayanami engages xAK Am. Press at 8,000 yards
AK Almaack sunk by DD Murasame at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
xAK Indira sunk by BB Mutsu at 7,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages AM Whippoorwill at 7,000 yards
CA Suzuya engages xAK Red Jacket at 7,000 yards
CA Ashigara engages AM Whippoorwill at 7,000 yards
CL Tenryu engages AM Whippoorwill at 7,000 yards
CL Kiso engages AM Whippoorwill at 7,000 yards
AM Whippoorwill sunk by CL Abukuma at 7,000 yards
xAK Am. Press sunk by DD Tokitsukaze at 7,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages xAK Red Jacket at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 5,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages xAK Mount McKinley at 5,000 yards
DD Ayanami engages xAK Red Jacket at 5,000 yards
xAK Am. Packer sunk by BB Mutsu at 5,000 yards
CA Ashigara engages xAK Mount McKinley at 5,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages xAK Peter Kerr at 5,000 yards
xAK Mount McKinley sunk by CL Kitakami at 5,000 yards
DD Harusame engages xAK Hosang at 5,000 yards
xAK Red Jacket sunk by DD Amatsukaze at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
xAK Peter Kerr sunk by BB Ise at 2,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages xAK Am. Builder at 2,000 yards
BB Ise engages xAK Hosang at 2,000 yards
xAK Am. Builder sunk by BB Mutsu at 2,000 yards
xAK Wallingford sunk by DD Ayanami at 2,000 yards
CL Kitakami engages xAK Hosang at 2,000 yards
xAK Hosang sunk by BB Ise at 2,000 yards
xAK Hosang sunk by BB Ise at 2,000 yards
Combat ends with last Allied ship sunk...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Singapore at 50,84, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E Shimushu, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
xAKL Genkai Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
xAKL Nichirei Maru, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
xAKL Yamamizu Maru, Shell hits 23, and is sunk
xAKL Gozan Maru, Shell hits 21, and is sunk

Another convoy at Singers is sunk by my raiders basing from Palembang.

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise
CL Emerald
CL Ceres
CL Caledon
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Fortune
DD Griffin
DD Hotspur



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Brunei at 66,86

Japanese Ships
PB Teibo Maru #2

Allied Ships
SS Snapper

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Manado , at 75,99

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 8
F2A-3 Buffalo x 8
F4F-3A Wildcat x 4
F4F-3 Wildcat x 8


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 1 destroyed
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed

In reality most of the Zeroes were destroyed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Manado , at 75,99

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3



Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 3
F2A-3 Buffalo x 4
F4F-3A Wildcat x 2
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kanhsien , at 81,57

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 6
Ki-30 Ann x 17



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 9
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 3
Ki-51 Sonia x 21



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 8
Ki-36 Ida x 17



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 19



No Japanese losses



Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 11



No Japanese losses



Runway hits 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 102nd Infantry Regiment, at 82,60

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
43 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 9
A-29 Hudson x 6


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 5 damaged
A-29 Hudson: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-27, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage

Runway hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Langsa , at 46,74

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 34 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 23
Ki-30 Ann x 25



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 17


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 38,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 8
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 8



Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 15


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb Trop: 2 destroyed

A costly exercise but an important proof of concept. If one squadron of Hurri IIs can sweep Singers at a range of 7 hexes then 300 Allied fighters can sweep Singers at the same range and sweep the IJAAF and IJNAF fighters from the sky.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Peleliu at 90,98

Japanese Ships
DD Uranami
xAKL Nanka Maru

Allied Ships
SS Grayback

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20652 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 675

Defending force 17990 troops, 186 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 509


Allied ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
25th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
66th Infantry Regiment
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
1st Ind.Inf.Group
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
20th RGC Division
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
1st JAAF AF Coy
Canton Special Base Force
31st Special Base Force
47th JAAF AF Bn
2nd JAAF AF Coy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 25037 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 970

Defending force 17661 troops, 132 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 647


Allied ground losses:
16 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
43rd Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
35th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade


I'll return to the hermeneutics discussion later. Hopefully, if we can do 1 to 2 turns each day over the weekend I can hit Singers before Monday and post the results here.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Timeo Nemo et dona ferens Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.500