RE: One Weird Battle

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: One Weird Battle

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: One Weird Battle

Page: << < prev 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 8:39:10 PM

Canoerebel

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

From my perspective as the Allied player, here's what I think Brad did wrong. Bear in mind that you guys know more about the situation than do I, and shouldn't reply if doing so will be an OpSec violation, but you might be interested in my analysis.

Brad came very close to overwhelming the Allied defenses in India by the summer of 1942. The key to the Allied position was Karachi. Brad should have taken it early, which I think was possible, or he should have used the KB and combat ships to impose a lengthy blockade. The latter almost certainly would have resulted in a big carrier battle. The Alllies might have won, but I'd say the odds were 65% in favor of Japan.

Prior to moving on Karachi, Brad should have taken the island of Socatra off Italian East Africa. This would have shut down or made extremely hazardous Allied sea traffic between Capetown and Aden. Once again, the Allies would have had to use carriers to escort critical reinforcements (like the Marines and 27th Division) to Aden.

Brad probably could have successfully invaded Karachi or Bombay in late spring of 1942, perhaps even into the summer had he been willing to prep his troops and chance SigInt leaks. Karachi, in particular, was vulnerable. If he didn't want to invade those two bases, he should have landed in force at Surat or the base across the bight and then moved to isolate either Karachi or Bombay, preferably the former.

As of July 1942, no American troops were in India and probably 1,500 Indian and UK AV hadn't arrived yet. That was the maximum opportunity for Brad to strike, though he probably still could have successfully into August and perhaps even September.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1141

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 8:44:05 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, opinions can differ. I would suggest you read Canoerebel's opponent's AAR. IIRC Alfred and I both posted with concerns re: his lack of committment many many months of gametime ago. Others may have posted the same concerns too but I don't remember their names.

Bottom line - If you read those posts from many months ago it is clear some people identified his plan wasn't clear enough to serve as a focus for his thinking... I think events have proved that to be right. I think that our difference may lie in us meaining two different things when we talk about "the plan". I think you're talking about his plan as outlined. I'm talking about his end-point, which I don't think he ever crystallised and thus since he didn't know his end-point he could never have a proper yardstick against which to measure his committment of forces.

Happy to discuss this by PM if you wish... but I think clarifying that we seem to mean slightly different things when we use the same word probably clarifies it sufficiently.

Yes, that's probably a fair summary of our differences.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1142

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 8:46:47 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Bear in mind that you guys know more about the situation than do I, and shouldn't reply if doing so will be an OpSec violation, but you might be interested in my analysis.

Can't reply, as it would be an OpSec violation.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1143

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 9:47:48 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

Canoerebel, thankyou for letting us hijack your AAR

Are the posters in this thread concluding that Scen. 2, played by a thoughtful Japanese player who fully understands the game mechanics is going to result in a more likely than not auto victory ? ( All things being equal that is ).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1144

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 9:50:00 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Canoerebel, thankyou for letting us hijack your AAR

Are the posters in this thread concluding that Scen. 2, played by a thoughtful Japanese player who fully understands the game mechanics is going to result in a more likely than not auto victory ? ( All things being equal that is ).

No. Absolutely not.

_____________________________

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 1145

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 10:04:26 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Canoerebel, thankyou for letting us hijack your AAR

Are the posters in this thread concluding that Scen. 2, played by a thoughtful Japanese player who fully understands the game mechanics is going to result in a more likely than not auto victory ? ( All things being equal that is ).

No. Absolutely not.

Well I must say that I would be hesitant to play as an Allied player at this point using scen. 2. Especially after " The Moose " did his helpful clarification of the various reinforcement triggering points. But then again I tend to be a methodical type of player.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1146

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/3/2011 10:18:53 PM

Canoerebel

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

We don't have enough information yet to say that such a victory is more likely than not. However, I would say an experienced and aggressive Japanse player has a reasonable chance of achieving auto victory. I think an experienced Allied player not deathly afraid of gambling has a reasonable chance of preventing an auto-victory, but he may be sweating things for a long time.

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 1147

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 1:28:49 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Play the man not the game and you can win almost any scenario unless it is horribly unbalanced ( it would have to be much more unbalanced than Scenario 2 for that to apply ).

Once an opponent gets discourage and feels defeated it simply doesn't matter if they have 10 times the force you have on the field. They won't wield it properly if their mindset is wrong.

Scenario 2 is. I think, eminently winnable by mid-43 for the Allies. You can do it by the end of 42 if you have an opponent who co-operates. By winning I mean creating a situation where the Japanese position is obviously utterly untenable from an economic point of view ( the only point of view which matters).

In this game Japan can secure its economic integrity until at least early 44 if it plays properly, trading space for time. This game is still, IMO, a game in which Japan can still achieve great things. It just can't "win" or conquer a lot more territory right now... but it can still create a long, grinding, campaign in which Allied losses are extremely high.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1148

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 2:06:47 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Canoerebel, thankyou for letting us hijack your AAR

Are the posters in this thread concluding that Scen. 2, played by a thoughtful Japanese player who fully understands the game mechanics is going to result in a more likely than not auto victory ? ( All things being equal that is ).

No. Absolutely not.

Unless the Allied player refuses the naval fight. Then yes, more likely than not.

N.B CR's comments on Karachi.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1149

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 2:19:14 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Hmm, actually accepting the naval fight would tend to stave off auto-victory as the Japanese player is unlikely to sink 4 times as much combat shipping as the Allied player will sink in those clashes. Moreover logistically it makes sense to wear down the asset the Japanese player has the most difficulty replacing from early as possible. I went into the reasons why in my AAR vs 1Eyedjacks.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 1150

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 2:49:18 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, actually accepting the naval fight would tend to stave off auto-victory as the Japanese player is unlikely to sink 4 times as much combat shipping as the Allied player will sink in those clashes. Moreover logistically it makes sense to wear down the asset the Japanese player has the most difficulty replacing from early as possible. I went into the reasons why in my AAR vs 1Eyedjacks.

I understand the VP argument, but that can be made up by bagging multiple divisions at Bombay later when the supplies are run down. Also, the sinking mix probability favors the IJN with Long Lances and better stand-off TBs, and the Allies' need to mix in heavily with merchants in slow TFs. The IJN doesn't need to risk the KB much or at all to take and hold Karachi if it has strategic surprise. It has plenty of CAs and DDs in that area of the map in that era to set up effective barriers from the Mideast. Nor does it need to protect Karachi for long by sea. Only long enough to fortify, establish LBA there, mine, and supply. Then the Japanese player can fill in the gaps to the south by investing an unsupplied Bombay, and concern himself with central India and VP farming.

My overall point is Karachi is the key to India. If the Japanese player takes it, and the Allied player lets him, the auto-vic is likely. If the Allied player fights for it at sea, the auto-vic is less likely, but still highly possible. If the Japanese player stops south of Bombay and allows materiel to pour into Karachi from the wormhole, auto-vic is not going to happen.

India looks like a land campaign, but it's really a naval campaign supported on land. The mechanics of off-map are at worst a two-edged sword for the Japanese player, and looked at properly and exploited (single axis of defense for sure) the off-map rules work for him, especially while Aden is still closed to the Med.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1151

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 5:54:27 AM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Play the man not the game and you can win almost any scenario unless it is horribly unbalanced ( it would have to be much more unbalanced than Scenario 2 for that to apply ).

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1152

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 6:43:10 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I'm very sad to see the end of this AAR, it was one of the few I read.

But I have thought this was coming for a while. I think that maybe the excitement was taken out of the challenge by CR's hiding of his CV.

I agree with the views that QBall missed a great chance immediately after capturing Colombo. At this point he needed to work out what the next step was and, IMHO should have landed at Karachi, prepped or not, with as much as he could.

If not, he should have used his striking force (KB) to go around smashing whatever he could. Maybe CR would have cracked and let loose his CV.

Who will be CR's next opponent, ready with a folio of CR's favourite strategies, they would make up a small book!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1153

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 1:17:40 PM

Canoerebel

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

10/9/42

Ah, the game is not over, mon cherie! (I always wanted to call somebody that...just not a man....). There was so much discussion about the overal turning point yesterday that it would be easy to have missed that little tidbit. Meanwhile, we played this turn yesterday and then Brad sent another turn, which I'll play today. We're on life support, but he's trying to get himself re-engaged.

India: 750 AV in armored units have caught up to the Japanese stack retreating towards Poona, with another 1400 AV in infantry and artillery to arrive today. Of course, before everybody gets there and is ready to attack, the Japanese could pull back another hex. I'll continue to give chase while also ponding the Japanese troops by air. Brad is putting up more fighters, and their readily claiming Allied medium bombers, but this is no time to get squeemish over some losses. I'm also keeping my eye on the larger IJA stack between Jalagon and Benares - it features about 60,000 troops (probably three divisions). If they reverse course and head back toward Jalagon, the Allies have about 800 AV to defend with.

Norfolk Island: All ships pulled away successfully. No losses were taken in this invasion, and the IJ remnants were eliminated today.

CenPac: With Norfolk Island completed and no sign of IJN carriers, it appears that Brad isn't sending his carriers this way. Accordingly, I'll temporarily stand down my Marcus/Wake transports, send them back to Pearl, and unload. They'll re-embark when the Allied carriers arrive in SoPac (as a diversion) in about three weeks).

Japanese Inactivity: I was certain the Japan would engage in a major offensive as soon as Brad got the all-clear with regard to the Kuriles. As the calendar is fast approaching winter conditions there, the all-clear should come in no more than two weeks, maybe less. At that point I expect a move on Midway, Baker, Fiji, or (much less likely) NZ or the Aleutians. It is also possible that Brad has adopted a "come get me" strategy mirroring the Allied strategy - hiding his carriers and waiting for the Allies to move on something important.

Allied Activity: The next Allied moves will either be on Noumea or Wake/Marcus in roughly three weeks (or both, with Noumea serving primarily as a diversion).

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 1154

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 3:58:41 PM

Canoerebel

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

10/10/42

Bombay: IJA 1st Division is one hex north of Bombay. As soon as it makes it back to Bombay, I'm sure Brad will retreat his stack. The Allies will pursue with 2,600 AV.

South of Jalagon: The retiring IJA stack took a hard left (east) turn onto a yellow road (rather than retiring toward Poona). I'm going to follow this stack with my 2,100 AV army even though it means going off on a tangent in an area where it will be hard to retire if I needed to for some reason. This is my best chance to catch and punish a Japanase army.

East of Jalagon: The retiring IJA stack is nearly back to Naipur. I have about 800 AV following several hexes back - but my "chasers" are weaker than the "chasees," so I really don't want to catch them. However, I am trying to "keep the scare up." I'm air transporting troops to the rear of Japan (Raipur is still controlled by the Allies) and one of my Chindit units will try the second assault agains the dot hex to the south (the one that 1st Marine 'Chutes failed to take a few days ago).

India in General: I'm nearly positive now that there's no chance for Japan to launch a counteroffensive that would pose a real strategic threat in India. While Brad has alot of troops here, he's facing a very large enemy (and just how large he's not sure) so that he's really got to focus on retiring in good order. He won't chance going forward and getting isolated. I think he'll manage to extract the vast majority of his army, but I'll keep looking for chances to batter Japanese divisions whenever possible. There's alot of fighting to be done, but the Allies won the Battle of India. The Japanese high water mark was the copse of trees at Jalagon.

SoPac: All troops prepping for Noumea are reporting to ports of embarkation. In Oz, an arty unit and base force will go to Melbourne. In NZ, three brigades, one arty unit, and one HQ will go to Wellington. Troops are about 70% prepped and total about 250 AV. Noumea is held by one unit about 2k in strength, so I shouldn't need much. I have picket ships around New Caledonia and I don't think they've been sighted; they certainly haven't been molested. If this state of affairs continues, the Allies may proceed with the invasion without using or revealing the carriers.

CenPac: The Marcus/Wake ships are retiring to Pearl Harbor (they had staged forward to the Lihue vicinity to be ready in case the KB had been employed in response to the recent invasion of Norfolk Island).

NoPac: The mock invasion force is well to the northwest of Attu Island in the Bearing Sea. I'll recall these ships in a few days. If Brad is aware of this "armada," he'll know that the threat is off once they retire.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1155

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 7:59:33 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It will also be interesting to read Brad's AAR when the time comes. Brad was pretty close to conquering India. In fact, if we played again and if I employed the same strategy, I have no doubt that he would succeed and achieve auto victory.

I really liked my strategy in this game - I developed it day one, tweaked it as time went by, and it worked against a very stiff test. But I think it's also a very risky defense. It is not the kind of defense one should employ against an aggressive and experienced Japanese player in a Scenario Two game. I also think that Australia would be more vulnerable than India - and more likely to force the Allies to commit his carriers.

In fact, I'm not sure I will play Scenario Two against an experienced IJ player again.

Yes, as we see our JFBs working out their "perfect" strategies they are getting closer to pulling out some pat auto victory gambits. I think that in the future if I agree to play scen 2 (fun, but scary) then auto victory will be off the table...Nothing but a full campaign in return for ceeding them all those goodies.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1156

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 8:03:53 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It will also be interesting to read Brad's AAR when the time comes. Brad was pretty close to conquering India. In fact, if we played again and if I employed the same strategy, I have no doubt that he would succeed and achieve auto victory.

I really liked my strategy in this game - I developed it day one, tweaked it as time went by, and it worked against a very stiff test. But I think it's also a very risky defense. It is not the kind of defense one should employ against an aggressive and experienced Japanese player in a Scenario Two game. I also think that Australia would be more vulnerable than India - and more likely to force the Allies to commit his carriers.

In fact, I'm not sure I will play Scenario Two against an experienced IJ player again.

Yes, as we see our JFBs working out their "perfect" strategies they are getting closer to pulling out some pat auto victory gambits. I think that in the future if I agree to play scen 2 (fun, but scary) then auto victory will be off the table...Nothing but a full campaign in return for ceeding them all those goodies.

Sounds like a sage trade...

There's a lot of JFB learnin' goin' on from this AAR and others like it. Kudos to our vanguard JFBs like Q-ball, PzB, Cuttlefish and Cap_N_Gown for being pioneers for other JFBs.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1157

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 8:07:57 PM

Canoerebel

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

I would only play Scenerio Two again if auto victory was on the table. The real challenge would be the early war - to see if the Allies could stave off auto victory under circumstances in which Japan had a decent shot at it.

I'm not positive I want to take that chance yet - for losing a game before the Allies really get rolling would be brutal. You'd have played for perhaps six to twelve months of real time, and you'd suffer a very public and embarrassing loss. But man, the level of excitement!

As an Allied player, 1944 and 1945 are fun - kind of like fishing with dynamite, electrical charges, and rotanone.

But the real fun is 1942, when the Allied player has his back to the wall and has to do his very best...and still sweats things.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1158

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 8:54:28 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

But, but , but . . .

As you've shown, the Allies CAN stop an auto-vic by keeping Karachi open. That can happen in at least two ways:

1. Have the Japanese player fail to try to take it. Cold feet, not realizing its import, atttacking India too late, etc., etc. Allies are all good. Stuff flows in from the Mideast, Japanese are forced back by early 1943.

2. Japanese try to take it; Allies stop them at sea. Same ultimate result. Stuff in, Japanese out.

The PROBLEM is when the Allied player wants it both ways. Keep Karachi but not risk his navy. That doesn't work with a great Japanese player.

Slowly, by accretion, in several AARs and the general forum, I"ve seen this idea/belief/truism creep in that the Allies have some fundamental right to escape 1942 with their carriers alive, any of them. That any task which arises that requires them to die in service of the war effort is somehow cosmically unfair as it prevents the romping to come in 1943-45. Not true.

Carrier Love is dangerous. They are warships, just bigger and more ungainly than a DD, the greyhound of the sea. If needed their lives should be expended just the same way.

So, I agree with you, CR. A HR to remove auto-vic in Scenario 2 is unneeded. The Allies have the ability to stop it. They just may not have the ability to stop it without a lot of bleeding. Such is life.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1159

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 9:06:16 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

2. Japanese try to take it; Allies stop them at sea. Same ultimate result. Stuff in, Japanese out.

I don't think the Allies were in a position to do this. Taking on the full KB in the summer of 42 is just a quicker road to auto-victory. The allies have little to nothing to defend Karachi with. Certainly not enough to stop a full scenario 2 bunch of divisions. Once Karachi was taken, for all practical purposes, reinforcements stop. I this if AAR stops tomorrow (and I hope it does not) it at least provides the best clear roadmap to Japanese auto-victory I have seen in this forum.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 1160

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 9:37:32 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

2. Japanese try to take it; Allies stop them at sea. Same ultimate result. Stuff in, Japanese out.

I don't think the Allies were in a position to do this. Taking on the full KB in the summer of 42 is just a quicker road to auto-victory. The allies have little to nothing to defend Karachi with. Certainly not enough to stop a full scenario 2 bunch of divisions. Once Karachi was taken, for all practical purposes, reinforcements stop. I this if AAR stops tomorrow (and I hope it does not) it at least provides the best clear roadmap to Japanese auto-victory I have seen in this forum.

KB, KB, KB!!!!! This obsession with the carriers!

An amphibious invasion of Karachi doesn't need the KB if it's a surprise. The RAF had diddly for anti-shipping models in early 1942. Some Stringbags, Albacores, miscellaneous other crappola.

That said, say they do use the KB. Per above, the USN MUST use its carriers, if only to allow the RN headspace to use its heavy skimmers, probably hiding out at Aden, to come in and clean off the invasion beaches. And the RN has some decent ships for that in the BB/CA range if they've been saved from earlier loss. Also, some of the Dutch metal might be sent northwest rather than die at Soerbaja.

Say the KB stays out of it. Maybe even out of the theater, making mischief elsewhere. Then the USN carriers devastate an amphib move on Karachi. There's no IJA LBA yet; it's still south of an Allied Bombay. (Although it'll be at Karachi soonest once it falls, and then the wormhole is useless. Bet(ty) on it.) There might be some mixing it up with the IJN BBs, but at worst the carriers get hurt, not sunk. But the landing beaches get swept more than likely.

As Nemo said yesterday, the IJN doesn't want a big carrier battle on the x4 VP basis. It would LOVE the Allies to roll over and let Karachi fall. To let Carrier Love rule the day. To have the big boys sit at Cape Town and watch, lest their paint be mussed. But that's not what they're for.

On land, the Japanese can't get the full Scenario 2 load of divisions to Karachi by land. Not and be in supply--the flanks would be enormous with Bombay untaken. Karachi needs to be an Inchon, and sealift isn't infinite. It would be a tough fight though, all the more reason for the Allies to intervene quickly, and keep supply off the beaches. Stowing the carriers in CT is not going to work--that's a month away, more or less. They need to be up the wormhole, which is a nice bit of sneaking and forethought. It would help if the sneaking happened before Socotra fell as well.

As I said, India is a naval campaign, which supports the anti-economic campaign ashore. Take Karachi, secure it, then get the non-industrial centers at Madras and Calcutta to self-fund Japanese ground supply needs and an air campaign on the west coast, then squeeze Bombay. Let the auto-reinforcements trigger. They'll rot at Aden if the wornhole is shut down. The few which poof into Karachi will die there, after eating up scarce supplies to activate devices.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 1161

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/4/2011 10:18:48 PM

Canoerebel

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

Interesting input and that makes for fun reading. Thanks, gents.

Now, as for Carrier Love, I've done things both ways. I've employed 'em and lost 'em early, while exacting a fair toll on the enemy, and I've hidden 'em and saved 'em while not inflicitng a fair toll on the enemy.

But here's the rub. When the carriers are safe and hidden, it can throw the major willies into the Japanese player. Many (most) will be afraid of sticking their neck out too far. And they are only likely to take chances in the one area where they have the KB. The rest of the map becomes safe.

If, on the other hand, the Allied carrers go "poof," or if they are employed way over on the edge of the map, the Japanese player can pretty much run amock.

In this game, I've suffered some humbling losses of territory in India, Oz, and New Caledonia, but Brad froze up in the Pacific for the most part. The Allies hold the Aleutians, Midway, Fiji, Samoa, Baker Island, etc. because Brad didn't want to take a risk. While my position isn't optimal, it's decent - and I have multiple options to take the war to the enemy in 1943.

I like the Carrier Love strategy, as The Bull put it, not because it lets me rampage in 1944 and '45, but because it puts the brakes on Japan in '42 and early '43!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 1162

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 12:15:35 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I've never won an AE or WITP game by winning a carrier battle. I've also never lost an AE or WiTP game through losing a carrier battle ( and I've lost a few ).

I think more people should investigate ways to win without carriers. In my last three games I've been hopelessly outclassed in carriers and yet managed to grind out advances in the face of superior numbers and quality. The ALlies have a lot of strengths to exploit which the Japanese don't have. if you fight the Japs where they are strongest ( KB ) then you are bound to get a beating IMO.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1163

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 10:15:50 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Play the man not the game and you can win almost any scenario unless it is horribly unbalanced... Once an opponent gets discourage and feels defeated it simply doesn't matter if they have 10 times the force you have on the field. They won't wield it properly if their mindset is wrong.
...
The ALlies have a lot of strengths to exploit which the Japanese don't have. if you fight the Japs where they are strongest ( KB ) then you are bound to get a beating IMO.

Fully agree, on both points. The first one is hardest to master, though. Nemo, sounds like you really know this business?

I think it is correct that Brad indeed realized too late that his strategic plans were diffuse, and his commitment not full -- I had the impression his worry about the whereabouts of the allied CV, and what CannoRebel could do with them, distracted him from what he actually should be doing himself. I recall that a while ago, after the discussion on triggering lines for reinforcements, he himself wrote that with that knowledge, he would have gone for Socorta and Karachi much earlier. Unfortunately he stopped posting in AAR and is now doing WiTE. But this remains one of my favorite AARs to follow! Hope it continues!

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1164

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 11:51:10 AM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Play the man not the game and you can win almost any scenario unless it is horribly unbalanced... Once an opponent gets discourage and feels defeated it simply doesn't matter if they have 10 times the force you have on the field. They won't wield it properly if their mindset is wrong.
...
The ALlies have a lot of strengths to exploit which the Japanese don't have. if you fight the Japs where they are strongest ( KB ) then you are bound to get a beating IMO.

Fully agree, on both points. The first one is hardest to master, though. Nemo, sounds like you really know this business?

I think it is correct that Brad indeed realized too late that his strategic plans were diffuse, and his commitment not full -- I had the impression his worry about the whereabouts of the allied CV, and what CannoRebel could do with them, distracted him from what he actually should be doing himself. I recall that a while ago, after the discussion on triggering lines for reinforcements, he himself wrote that with that knowledge, he would have gone for Socorta and Karachi much earlier. Unfortunately he stopped posting in AAR and is now doing WiTE. But this remains one of my favorite AARs to follow! Hope it continues!

Guys...let's please observe OPSEC in these AAR postings. IMO, posting considered operational objectives in the opponent's AAR is crossing the line.

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 1165

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 12:45:23 PM

Canoerebel

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

Chickenboy is right - err on the side of caution. Don't reveal anything from Brad's AAR.

But I will say that nothing was said that is any use to me now. The information is very dated and I pretty much knew this anyway.

Back about three months ago, game time, I had sent reinforcements, such as they were, to Socatra - a remnant Indian brigade with a whole 19 AV. My patrol aircraft spotted a TF and I thought it was probably an invasion heading for Socatra. I sent the Allied carriers north from Mombasa. They were one turn from entering the Indian Ocean when I confirmed that the Japanese ships were a modest surface combat raiding force bound for the Arabian Sea. The threat was off and I pulled back my carriers.

That's how close I came to revealing their position.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 1/5/2011 12:46:35 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1166

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 1:29:28 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Interesting input and that makes for fun reading. Thanks, gents.

Now, as for Carrier Love, I've done things both ways. I've employed 'em and lost 'em early, while exacting a fair toll on the enemy, and I've hidden 'em and saved 'em while not inflicitng a fair toll on the enemy.

But here's the rub. When the carriers are safe and hidden, it can throw the major willies into the Japanese player. Many (most) will be afraid of sticking their neck out too far. And they are only likely to take chances in the one area where they have the KB. The rest of the map becomes safe.

If, on the other hand, the Allied carrers go "poof," or if they are employed way over on the edge of the map, the Japanese player can pretty much run amock.

In this game, I've suffered some humbling losses of territory in India, Oz, and New Caledonia, but Brad froze up in the Pacific for the most part. The Allies hold the Aleutians, Midway, Fiji, Samoa, Baker Island, etc. because Brad didn't want to take a risk. While my position isn't optimal, it's decent - and I have multiple options to take the war to the enemy in 1943.

I like the Carrier Love strategy, as The Bull put it, not because it lets me rampage in 1944 and '45, but because it puts the brakes on Japan in '42 and early '43!

I would submit that this is more an issue with the Japanese player's emotions governing his strategies than with smart Allied play.

The USN operated for a time with only one surviving carrier in the Pacific, and still won by the summer of 1945 with a slower op tempo than AE allows. Yes, Midway happened in RL, but even so the carrier imbalance was profound for a time, far more so than AE Allied players who insist that four CVs are the minimum to overcome gridlock and execute an operation.

The KB is powerful, but it's not supreme. It can be countered, if loses are assumed and accepted. It has a glass jaw re Japanese repair facilities size and location as well. Hurt it once medium hard, and it's out until the USN starts getting the Essexes.

I still maintain that over time in the AE community the KB has assumed mythiic proportions. It needs to be respected, but it should not be the Number 1 factor in any Allied planning, and not knowing where it is should not confer the heebie-jeebies on the other side, any more than the Allies hiding their carriers. A hidden carrier is a carrier not attacking anything. A mixed outcome at best.

Edit: I wrote this before reading Nemo's post directly below the CR one I responded to. I agree with his stance, and not only because I know that submarines are the Most Important Platform.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/5/2011 1:35:12 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1167

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 1:45:42 PM

Canoerebel

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

I came up with the strategy, employed it, tweaked it, stuck with it, and it worked. But I'm the first to admit I'm not sure it was the smartest strategy in the world; and I doubt I would do it again.

How many times in real life has a commander who really wasn't that great been smiled upon by fortune and thus elevated to an exalted status; and how many times has a commander with real talent been rendered a schmuk when fortune did not smile upon him? Probably frequently.

It's probably the same in football and baseball. Many times a good coach/manager makes a huge difference, but sometimes a complete idiot benefits from pure luck or a powerful roster; other times a talented coach/manager is undone by bad chemistry, a freak injury, or a terrible lineup.

Okay, I'm no genius. But for whatever reason, my strategy worked (at least to this point).

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 1/5/2011 1:46:30 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 1168

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 1:53:34 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I came up with the strategy, employed it, tweaked it, stuck with it, and it worked. But I'm the first to admit I'm not sure it was the smartest strategy in the world; and I doubt I would do it again.

To beat Mr. Ed one more time, it worked because your opponent let it work, not because it worked. (Zen? Huh?)

I agree you shouldn't use it again, because people you play will read this AAR.

Marching around in the Kuriles? Ditto, maybe?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 1169

RE: One Weird Battle - 1/5/2011 3:37:21 PM

Canoerebel

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

I'm not sure I'm following the point. I know the strategy wasn't a stroke of genius; I know Brad didn't take full advantage; I know that I wouldn't use it again in the same circumstances.

But...can't you say that the Allied plan at Midway worked because the Japanese let it work? Had the Japanese concentrated their carriers and fleet, it is much more likely that the Allies could have been overwhelmed and lost. A lot had to go right for the Allies to win that particular battle.

Where does that leave Fletcher?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 1170