RE: Allied Losses

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: Allied Losses

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 >> RE: Allied Losses

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied Losses - 2/24/2011 2:52:03 PM

Canoerebel

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

How is it remotely possible that Japan could win the war even if it got stupendously lucky and sank all the American carriers and battleships and a host of transports? The staggering losses following closely upon Pearl Harbor would have just further steeled the resolve of the American public, military, and politicians.

Meanwhile, Japan has 10 battleships, 18 cruisers, six carriers, and a complete inability to land an invasion force on any distant beach that has the slightest level of defense. So, even with a temporarily neutered United States, Japan isn't going anywhere.

And by 1943 the "fully aroused democracy" has flexed its muscles even more than it did in the real war, so Japan gets clobbered anyway.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 31

RE: Allied Losses - 2/24/2011 2:56:27 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

even the US can't build an infinite number of major warships within a set timeframe. I'm still wondering what the OT's opponent was doing to lose so many major warships. Its enough to gut several navies put together.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 32

RE: Allied Losses - 2/24/2011 3:02:59 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

I would not rely on off map entry camping. It works sometimes, but you expose your fleets far
away from safe harbors, and guzzle up loads of fuel. Both is not something a Japanese player should do out
of a habit.

With this kind of naval disparity, does the IJN have to worry about fuel? (I haven't played much on the dark side, so I may be off base).

The best way to kill troops is when they're on ships, right?

If CVs/CVLs (and long-legged air ) were in Perth, Diego Garcia, Socotra, and S Pacific, (about half of total, while others, 2 CV and 2 CVL perhaps, stayed in KB and pursued offensive operations), and small CL/DD and CS/DD TFs combined with air were searching the waters, wouldn't you hamstring the only strength left to the Allies (amount of supply, troops, air, etc)? At least for 6 months until the Essex CVs arrived?

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 33

RE: Allied Losses - 2/24/2011 3:23:51 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

I assumed that your question was if this is a viable strategy in general.

In the specific situation of the OPs PBEM it is clearly an option, but with this supremacy
there are better strategies available. LBA does not protect you at night, mines only protect
you against bombardement TFs in combination with surface assets to kill minesweepers, the list goes
on and on.
In a three dimensional battlefield this Allied player is robbed of a whole dimension and this cannot
be replaced by other assets.

The Japanese side can play aggressive without covering the map edges. There are abvious spots where his opponents
fleets need to move to if he wants them to make an impact (either with military vessels or with transports carrying troops).
In that situation these bases are the main targets and the ships with these bases as destination.

As Nik is, I am at loss how such a desaster could happen. Its about the weirdest situation in a PBEM I have seen up to
now.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/24/2011 3:28:26 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 34

RE: Allied Losses - 2/24/2011 3:24:13 PM

crsutton

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

Yes, I agree. I think one of the most amazing non events of this past century is that WWIII did not take place between the West and the Soviet Bloc. But without total victory over the Axis, or God forbid, the reverse, I can's see how the conflict could have ended with any long standing peace.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 35

RE: Allied Losses - 2/27/2011 1:19:44 AM

JeffroK

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

Changed surrender criteria?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Objective.html

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 36

RE: Allied Losses - 2/27/2011 2:46:44 AM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many.

But JFB's want Japanese stereotypes of Westerners to be right, no matter how nonsensical and prejudiced they might be.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 37

RE: Allied Losses - 2/27/2011 4:32:19 AM

Stuffedlogon

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/27/2005
Status: offline

[/quote]

Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.
[/quote]

Well........I consider myself to be experienced but in current PBEM I decided to try and see if I could speed up the war by landing in the DEI.....I have now experienced similar losses to the original poster of this thread. If nothing it has made for a fun game for my opponent who shall remain nameless less his head gets to big.

Raverdave elects to withhold his name.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 38

RE: Allied Losses - 2/27/2011 4:49:37 AM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

This smells suspiciously like another post about lopsided allied losses....

(in reply to Stuffedlogon)

Post #: 39

RE: Allied Losses - 2/27/2011 5:04:12 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

meh... There's people out there who don't care about digital losses. They're happy playing an aggressive game, and I'm sure that their opponents are happy as well...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 40