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: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

 
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: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  116 117 [118] 119 120   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:01:40 PM   
kjnoel

 

Posts: 104
Joined: 3/10/2011
Status: offline 		What's wrong is that you're planning on feeding in your fighters when you have empty pools knowing that they're going to die. Although you state that you have been conservative with your aircraft I would suggest that you haven't ... simply because your pools are empty. The fact that you have a higher kill ratio suggests that you have employed your aircraft well to this point, but the squadrons are now shot for the time being.

The solution is not to feed in the carrier fighters but rather to stop contesting the airspace, switch to ambush tactics. Pick your moments, not John's.

You have created the situation (by invading Sumatra) where the Japanese have no choice but to concentrate against you, that in itself is a victory. To want to then beat that concentration of forces when you have no reserves just simply doesn't make sense. To then claim that "there's something wrong" just doesn't stack up.

You have your victory, sit on it until mid-'43 and then watch the Japanese empire crumble. Anything else just isn't going to happen, no point in then "crying foul".

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3511
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:17:02 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I just fundamentally disagree with your analysis. I think the Allied fighter pools need tweaking. I think it's in the interest of the Japanese player too, just like tweaking the Japanese OOB later in the game is in the interest of the Allied player. Without the tweaks, the game veers into imbalance in unsatisfying ways. (This is assuming there is an imbalance now. Perhaps I'm missing something or don't know how to do something I should be doing).

Yes, I can abandon Sabang (which is what you're suggesting, though you don't realize it). The Allies are in great shape no matter what happens there. The Allies will win the war as the Allies inevitably do. But it's in 1942 and '43, when the game is balanced and moves are exciting rather than inevitable, that the game is at its richest. At that point, the two sides can meet head on at sea and on the ground in fair fights; but apparently not in the air.

(in reply to kjnoel)
Post #: 3512
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:28:08 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
We call them "Polack". But there is absolutely nothing derogatory in the name. It just means "person from Poland". I´ll make sure not to say that when I´m in the states obviously


Well... it actually always depends on who uses it, how uses it and in what situation.
It's the English loanword and loanword only ("Polack") which is taken as derogatory and/or offensive.

Funny thing is that we use the same word in our language (I am a Pole/Jestem Polakiem) spoken the same /ˈpoʊlɑːk/ but written as: Polak (a person from Poland) and it's perfectly ok.
[Rather derogatory in my native language and abroad, especially if used by the Germans, is: "Polaczek"].
So... if you learn Polish language and trying to use a word that sounds similar to our language, you can use "Polak" freely...
However, the English-Polish dictionaries suggest using rather pc word: Pole

[EDIT]Would you dare to call the Pope John Paul II a Pol(l)ack?

Thanks, I didn't know of the Polish language root of the word.

And just to further the whole conversation, the fish name Pollack is pronounced like the name Paul, not like Pole, so it's quite unrelated. I think Bullwinkle just hates that fish or something!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 3513
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:29:02 PM   
kjnoel

 

Posts: 104
Joined: 3/10/2011
Status: offline 		I don't disagree that deeper aircraft pools would be beneficial to the fun in the enhanced scenarios, although the Japanese would then build more.... and then the economy would collapse earlier.... which would lead to more abandoned games and cries of more supplies which would lead to more early Japanese aircraft which would......

In every scenario there are finite numbers of everything, just with different limits. No point in playing outside those limits and expecting things to somehow balance out, they are what they are.

I am loving this match-up and just don't want it to end

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3514
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:35:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
We call them "Polack". But there is absolutely nothing derogatory in the name. It just means "person from Poland". I´ll make sure not to say that when I´m in the states obviously


Well... it actually always depends on who uses it, how uses it and in what situation.
It's the English loanword and loanword only ("Polack") which is taken as derogatory and/or offensive.

Funny thing is that we use the same word in our language (I am a Pole/Jestem Polakiem) spoken the same /ˈpoʊlɑːk/ but written as: Polak (a person from Poland) and it's perfectly ok.
[Rather derogatory in my native language and abroad, especially if used by the Germans, is: "Polaczek"].
So... if you learn Polish language and trying to use a word that sounds similar to our language, you can use "Polak" freely...
However, the English-Polish dictionaries suggest using rather pc word: Pole

[EDIT]Would you dare to call the Pope John Paul II a Pol(l)ack?

Thanks, I didn't know of the Polish language root of the word.

And just to further the whole conversation, the fish name Pollack is pronounced like the name Paul, not like Pole, so it's quite unrelated. I think Bullwinkle just hates that fish or something!


Yep!

Right up there with haddock, aka "McDonald's Atlantic Square Fish (Sandwich)."

Edit: Wiki sez: " The haddock is easily recognized by a black lateral line running along its white side (not to be confused with pollock which has the reverse, i.e. white line on black side) and a distinctive dark blotch above the pectoral fin, often described as a "thumbprint" or even the "Devil's thumbprint" or "St. Peter's mark".

Yuck.

Wiki also sez that young haddock are sold in Boston as "scrod", which just sounds too close to a piece of male anatomy for this moose.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/11/2013 3:39:55 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3515
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:37:14 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I don't mind giving Japan more to fight with in late game, as previously noted. Whatever it is - supply, etc. Like I said, it's in the interest of the Allied player. I do not think the current situation is in the interest of either player. Your point is that a move against Sabang might not be sustainable due to the lopsided air war. My point there shouldn't be a lopsided air war and that a move like this one should be sustainable (and it's in the interest of both sides that it is) if one player lets his guard down totally.

(in reply to kjnoel)
Post #: 3516
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:37:59 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		This is the price we pay for giving the Japanese players so much control over production. However it does not unbalance the game but creates a different game giving the Allied player less control over events in 42 and requiring a more defensive stance until mid 43. Yes, you can give the Allies more fighters but in the end you will create a historic war and we all know how poorly that went for Japan after 1942.

Good luck finding a willing Japanese opponent then.

A better solution is to have a 1942 through mid 1943 historical scenario with no changes for either side. PDU off. That would allow for a great fight on historical lines in what I think is the most exciting portion of the war for both sides. But really after mid 43 the party would be over for a Japanese player. It also would shorten our real life time commitment. My excellent game with Ark is nearing five years in real time.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to kjnoel)
Post #: 3517
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:38:22 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		I think the problem here, Canoerebel, is that you are playing a JFB scenario. It's not that Allied pools are low but rather that Japanese pools are too high. For a historic force ratio, scenario 1 with PDU ON is pretty much required.

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3518
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:40:11 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Six of one, half dozen of the other.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 3519
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 3:42:19 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: String

I think the problem here, Canoerebel, is that you are playing a JFB scenario.


And playing with very favorable HRs to the Japanese side.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to String)
Post #: 3520
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 4:05:24 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I don't think the mod or the House Rules materially affect the air war. I think I'd be facing the same situation under most scenarios and without house rules. With regard to house rules, John would have to spread out his fighters more to cover strategic targets, but that wouldn't take much and he'd still be able to bring the house against the Allies, and the Allied pools would be just as dry.

There are many permutations to this, but geez, gents, is tweaking the pools this unreasonable?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3521
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 4:12:03 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String
I think the problem here, Canoerebel, is that you are playing a JFB scenario. It's not that Allied pools are low but rather that Japanese pools are too high. For a historic force ratio, scenario 1 with PDU ON is pretty much required.


Maybe you hit it on the head String...

I had a short episode playing against John the RA with John taking the Allied side and me playing Japan
and in effect he abandoned the game as early as in March '42...
Sooo... you must be doing great job here Canoerebel! Keep it going.

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to String)
Post #: 3522
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 4:57:42 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		1/2/42

Sabang: More sweeps, though the number of Tojos involved was considerably less. The Allies get the best of the battles on the day, though losses aren't particularly high for either side. Fatigue and morale numbers still excellent for the Allies, but disabled aircraft have reduced capacity to roughly 40% of what I had just two days ago. So the Allies will bring in three carrier F4F squadrons. This is mainly a desperate effort to buy a day or two for the aviation support to get the fighters up and working again. (By the way, the P-38Gs haven't been touched in the battles; the P-40K is robust and can give as good as it gets, but that's not going to be enough with the pools now down to just seven aircraft. Holy cow!) At this rate, the Allies may only have three or four days left before hard decisions must be made.

Sumatra: The Japanese take Nias, leaving Sinabang as the only base on the west side. The Japanese also land a fast transport invasion at Trinkat, but I think the Allied garrison is big enough to hold. Four IJA divisions are in the woods SW of Medan, facing one heavily reinforced USA division with a second two days away. It's jungle-rough terrain, so I think it's going to hold.

Assam: Japanese bombers have shut down Akyab airfield, which I've had to leave undefneded in favor of defending Sabang and Colombo (the later is my major triage unit and is exposed to enemy carrier raids; besides, it only has short-legged fighters that can't make the hop to Sabang). John won't accomplish anything lasting up here. This campaign depends on the outcome at Sabang. If the Allies hold, the Japanese are finished in Burma. If the Allies fold, Japan can make lots of noise in Burma, but aren't a threat to the major bases.

Elsewhere: Some things going on, but paling in comparison, so nuff said for now.

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 3523
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 5:12:49 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
There are many permutations to this, but geez, gents, is tweaking the pools this unreasonable?


The problem is that your 'tweaking the pools' for a supported scenario is someone else's "wrecking a perfectly good stock scenario to suit one player's wants".

That's what the editor is for, Dan. If you want that, by all means edit the database / replacements to suit whatever it is you're striving for. Then pre-arrange with a prospective partner that accepts this action. That's the way out. Politicking and rallying for a change to stock scenario 1 or 2 for your singular satisfaction is a non-starter.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3524
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 5:14:21 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		I am a known JFB - never played a single game as the allies in my entire WitP (and PacWar) life - but what sort of tweaking of pools would you suggest?


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3525
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 5:52:25 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		String's point is that for historical force balance, Scenario 1 with PDU Off (he said "On," but I think he meant off?) is the only way to go. The problem is, of course, the Scenario 1 leaves Japan at a historical and competitive disadvantage. That's okay for some folks, but many (including me) prefer giving Japan lots of advantages to make the game more competitive and exciting. (I have a long record of pursuing matchups that would maximize this competition, so why some people in here are now accusing me of crying foul or whining, I do not know).

The problem is that the more competive scenarios (2 and RA, for instance) give Japan much more to work with while leaving the Allied aircraft pools historical. We all know that the game is always played at a higher rate than historical, which makes the pool imbalance problematic. Also, since Japan tends to set the pace in 1941 and '42, the further exacerbates the imbalance.

The best option may be for the Allies is to fight carefully and to give ground. In effect, that creates an imbalance for the Japanese in '42 and (I think) an imbalance for the Allies in '44 and '45. We've done alot to address the latter, but little to address the former.

I think it's good to have a game where the Allies can search for opportunities to strike in '42, especially if Japan is negligent and unprepared. But I think there nees to be a tweak of the aircraft pools to address this imbalance and make the game reasonably competitive from an air standpoing in '42. I'm not a modder; I've never opened an editor; I'm simply stating a proposition. I wish the community wasn't so offended and hostile.

This is something I've run across much more frequently lately. I've had one player take my good-natured comment that I wanted to make you guys "honorary southerners" and say he couldn't accept because it carries a connotation of racism. I've been accused of creating soaking TFs. I've been accused of gamey play. These comments have really weighed on me of late.


(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 3526
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 6:05:59 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I'm not a modder; I've never opened an editor; I'm simply stating a proposition. I wish the community wasn't so offended and hostile.


Dan, I'm not trying to be hostile, and I'm certainly not offended. Your proposition has been heard and, in my opinion, your proposed remedy rejected. I don't mean to be perfunctory or rude, it's just that what you're asking for has a remedy (the editor), which you seem to be rejecting out of hand because you haven't used it before.

The game comes with infinite flexibility and iterations. It's up to the players to identify (preferably before a gamestart) what they want, get 'buy in' from their prospective opponents and go with it. If you (or others) want a specific aspect of the game enhanced for 'stock' scenarios, make your own modification. I'm sure John could help with it too, as he's quite comfortable with the editor.

So here's a thought: Have you asked John for some additional fighter pools? He could easily add those into the editor for you. If it were me in your shoes, I'd at least ask. You may be surprised.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3527
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 6:07:08 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline 		No worries Dan. Those of us who have followed your AARs over the years know your style of play and respect you for that. A player doesn't get the kind of following you have by taking cheap shots at exploiting the game engine. You may have opinions about game tweeks that others don't agree with, but so be it. But I'll add that any tweeks that can be made to make the entire war more like late-42 and '43, then love to see them.


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3528
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 6:18:39 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I'm not a modder; I've never opened an editor; I'm simply stating a proposition. I wish the community wasn't so offended and hostile.


Dan, I'm not trying to be hostile, and I'm certainly not offended. Your proposition has been heard and, in my opinion, your proposed remedy rejected. I don't mean to be perfunctory or rude, it's just that what you're asking for has a remedy (the editor), which you seem to be rejecting out of hand because you haven't used it before.

The game comes with infinite flexibility and iterations. It's up to the players to identify (preferably before a gamestart) what they want, get 'buy in' from their prospective opponents and go with it. If you (or others) want a specific aspect of the game enhanced for 'stock' scenarios, make your own modification. I'm sure John could help with it too, as he's quite comfortable with the editor.

So here's a thought: Have you asked John for some additional fighter pools? He could easily add those into the editor for you. If it were me in your shoes, I'd at least ask. You may be surprised.

+1

That was my point a page or two back about such changes belonging in a mod not in a historical baseline scenario. You are already playing such a mod - RA is based on Babes, which is a historical scenario, but RA makes 'what if' changes from there. There is nothing hostile in suggesting that what you propose belongs in a 'what if' scenario and not in a historical scenario.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3529
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 6:21:56 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I think I need a break from the forum; I think I need a break from the game.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3530
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 6:28:00 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I have another angle on the problem.

I´m not sure the best way to solve the problem with allied pools is to increase them. I think it might be better to crank down the Japanese ability to train competent pilots instead. That would create a "speedbump" in 42-43. If the Japanese players would have to husband their pilot force a bit that might do away with some of the problem. I´m certainly not suggestion going back to historical levels but I think its too easy for the Japanese to train pilots.

Right now you have to opposition sides. One with extremely limited airframe capacity and enough pilots to fill them. The other side has almost unlimited airframes and also the ability to fill them with lots to spare. This leads to a situation where the Japanese can hurl themselves against the allies with complete disregard for losses. THAT is the problem. There is nothing holding back the Japanese air force in 42 and 43. Of course that is going to create a lopsided situation. Add into this the ability to streamline production into a few very powerful fighters (Tojo/George/Frank) and that even further tips the balance.

Making it harder for Japan to train pilots and to force them to husband them to not run out would go a long way. But as with everything finding that exact balance is probably near impossible.

There is a built in function to make the air war less lopsided though. Its called PDU OFF. I think it would go a long way to solve many of the problems with the air war. And I honestly think it would be more enjoying for both sides. Sadly many (most?) Japanese players (understandably) is extremely reluctant to give away the massive boost PDU ON gives them. I know of only one game going with PDU OFF. I follow that with keen interest.

EDIT:
Hang in there CR. I almost quit my game two times. I didn´t and now I´m very glad I kept going.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 9/11/2013 6:29:26 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3531
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 6:44:44 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline 		I don't want to cause a row, or offend anyone (especially CR, whose AAR's are up there with the best) but Bullwinkle has nailed it for me with the comment about the "No strategic bombing" house rule.

I appreciate that CR thinks it wouldn't have that much effect, but I don't think that would be the case.

He'd have to protect every oil centre in range. He couldn't afford not to. That would slow down his build up, force him to spread his assets a lot more than he has to do at the moment.

With my limited experience of WITP:AE, CR looks to have pulled off a masterful stroke but can't do anything with it apart from be targeted by whatever John can throw at him.

That would be a lot less with the need to defend his oil centres.

The other view is that RA is so unbalanced in JFB favour that it isn't worth attacking till mid 43. You would hope that isn't the case.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3532
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 7:08:06 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I don't want to cause a row, or offend anyone (especially CR, whose AAR's are up there with the best) but Bullwinkle has nailed it for me with the comment about the "No strategic bombing" house rule.

I appreciate that CR thinks it wouldn't have that much effect, but I don't think that would be the case.

He'd have to protect every oil centre in range. He couldn't afford not to. That would slow down his build up, force him to spread his assets a lot more than he has to do at the moment.

With my limited experience of WITP:AE, CR looks to have pulled off a masterful stroke but can't do anything with it apart from be targeted by whatever John can throw at him.

That would be a lot less with the need to defend his oil centres.

The other view is that RA is so unbalanced in JFB favour that it isn't worth attacking till mid 43. You would hope that isn't the case.


This problem was something I explored in my AAR, which I was lambasted with a rant that the PTO is way way different than the ETO. The problem from my perspective is that many situations never historically encountered with the PTO are not only quite possible -- they are dictated for an IJ victory. Thus applying concepts of a historical basis to these "what if" situations is ludicrous in my opinion. For example, would Australia sit by and not build roads toward the northern regions if a serious IJ attack consumed the north? Well it did not happen historically because the IJ were pretty much stopped at Port Moresby. However, I feel pretty confident that the Aussies and US would make some effort at "Red Ball Express" to supply the Northern regions if the IJ suddenly turned the war from a colonial dispute into a Hitleraques like bid for world domination. However, I do realize this is a religious argument.

From my perspective I agree with this post that The HR about strategic bombing really adds to this problem. Fundamentally the IJ are enabled to concentrate all their air power at the tip of the spear so to speak. Historically, just to say once Doolittle did his thing on the Home Islands the IJ were in a pickle devoting resources to defend strategic targets and offensive operations. In this situation, the IJ have zero worries except a focus to reduce the airframe pools to zero.

What this does in my opinion is encourage a roper dope Allied strategy. Simply dodge and weave and use a force in being that the IJ have to worry about and then wait for 1944 to play blitzkrieg against the clock.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 3533
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 7:36:28 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

String's point is that for historical force balance, Scenario 1 with PDU Off (he said "On," but I think he meant off?) is the only way to go. The problem is, of course, the Scenario 1 leaves Japan at a historical and competitive disadvantage. That's okay for some folks, but many (including me) prefer giving Japan lots of advantages to make the game more competitive and exciting. (I have a long record of pursuing matchups that would maximize this competition, so why some people in here are now accusing me of crying foul or whining, I do not know).

The problem is that the more competive scenarios (2 and RA, for instance) give Japan much more to work with while leaving the Allied aircraft pools historical. We all know that the game is always played at a higher rate than historical, which makes the pool imbalance problematic. Also, since Japan tends to set the pace in 1941 and '42, the further exacerbates the imbalance.

The best option may be for the Allies is to fight carefully and to give ground. In effect, that creates an imbalance for the Japanese in '42 and (I think) an imbalance for the Allies in '44 and '45. We've done alot to address the latter, but little to address the former.

I think it's good to have a game where the Allies can search for opportunities to strike in '42, especially if Japan is negligent and unprepared. But I think there nees to be a tweak of the aircraft pools to address this imbalance and make the game reasonably competitive from an air standpoing in '42. I'm not a modder; I've never opened an editor; I'm simply stating a proposition. I wish the community wasn't so offended and hostile.

This is something I've run across much more frequently lately. I've had one player take my good-natured comment that I wanted to make you guys "honorary southerners" and say he couldn't accept because it carries a connotation of racism. I've been accused of creating soaking TFs. I've been accused of gamey play. These comments have really weighed on me of late.



I hope you realize we're all just offering thoughts and no one is seriously hostile or offended. They simply have lots of ideas and opinions and because you've created a great venue to discuss them, they're putting them out there.

In the beginning of this game at some point I suggested you look deeply into the differences between the sides before agreeing to certain HRs and before planning your strategic goals. It has A LOT of stuff for the Japanese and not much for the Allies.

The issue though is that in agreeing to these big improvements for Japan you'e also stated basically the kind of game you want to play, which is a Japanese force that is as you say more competitive. If you know it's more competitive and you know the limitations of the Allied side, then your move on Sumatra is fundamentally flawed at this time in game (without the ability to bomb oil at least).

I suspect that in this scenario you can't do it when you've done it. The IJ has too many good airframes, too many ships to carry them and this is too close to their center of power, so they don't even have the historical long LOC achieved when the Allies went for the Solomons.

I would love to see a game similar to what Jocke is proposing. We've spoken about this at some length. A game where the Japanese are limited to PDU off, where each side is limited in some way in pilot training (I threw out only 45 exp and 60 skill for fighters. Some TB pilots would have to have more).

You want big crazy battles and tense moments. You've got it!! You created it when Japan didn't do it by going for India or OZ. Now you have to be creative and see how to fight off the beast you've awakened. I'm excited to see how it goes.

Good luck Dan!




< Message edited by obvert -- 9/11/2013 8:29:04 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3534
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 7:40:44 PM   
obvert


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

< Message edited by obvert -- 9/11/2013 7:41:17 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3535
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 8:54:53 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		I agree - I think we're all just offering up our opinions - and I'm sure it can get pretty intense at times too.

Going back and looking at RA - this is John's "JFB - Wet Dream" scenario....it gives the Japanese pretty much everything they need to match the Allies toe for toe throughout the entire war, with a huge imbalance that lasts at least until the middle of 1943.

Given how the US (especially) would react to a much stronger Japanese force - you'd expect that aircraft production would be the least of the allied problems (there was no reason the US could not have expanded its production to an almost obscene level fairly quickly - if there was a reason).

I believe Nemo had worked on a scenario where the allies received a number of on-map factories that could be built up to provide additional capacity - as long as they moved the supplies that were necessary.

At the end of the day, I believe (and this is just my opinion - so don't burn me at the stake) that this scenario was designed specifically to give John the satisfaction of absolutely destroying the Allies anytime he wanted to....

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3536
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 8:59:43 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I agree - I think we're all just offering up our opinions - and I'm sure it can get pretty intense at times too.

Going back and looking at RA - this is John's "JFB - Wet Dream" scenario....it gives the Japanese pretty much everything they need to match the Allies toe for toe throughout the entire war, with a huge imbalance that lasts at least until the middle of 1943.

Given how the US (especially) would react to a much stronger Japanese force - you'd expect that aircraft production would be the least of the allied problems (there was no reason the US could not have expanded its production to an almost obscene level fairly quickly - if there was a reason).

I believe Nemo had worked on a scenario where the allies received a number of on-map factories that could be built up to provide additional capacity - as long as they moved the supplies that were necessary.

At the end of the day, I believe (and this is just my opinion - so don't burn me at the stake) that this scenario was designed specifically to give John the satisfaction of absolutely destroying the Allies anytime he wanted to....



Which would seem to make the moral of the story "beware JFBs peddling self made Wet Dream scenarios...especially ones they won't play the Allied side in beyond March '42!"

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 3537
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 9:26:48 PM   
Flicker

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 11/24/2011
From: Rocket City USA
Status: offline 		Canoerebel = "...my good-natured comment that I wanted to make you guys "honorary southerners" and say he couldn't accept because it carries a connotation of racism."

I saw that, bless his heart he just doesn't know any better.

I enjoy reading your AARs and watching your game play, but I don't know how you do it. The game is time-consuming and writing entertaining AARs takes effort. Sad to see your morale so low. I was hoping for an invasion of the Phillipines or Hokkaido or something to buck up morale...



< Message edited by Flicker -- 9/11/2013 9:27:13 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 3538
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 9:40:17 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Right now you have to opposition sides. One with extremely limited airframe capacity and enough pilots to fill them. The other side has almost unlimited airframes and also the ability to fill them with lots to spare. This leads to a situation where the Japanese can hurl themselves against the allies with complete disregard for losses. THAT is the problem. There is nothing holding back the Japanese air force in 42 and 43. Of course that is going to create a lopsided situation. Add into this the ability to streamline production into a few very powerful fighters (Tojo/George/Frank) and that even further tips the balance.



I know I sound like a broken record (young guys: look it up), but there is something holding Japan back if only it were observed: VPs. Play the design; it's in there. If CR has destroyed a vast number more aircraft as he says he's "winning" to an extent already if the design is respected.

Looks like this AAR is about to go dark, but perhaps this point can be a final take-away.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3539
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 9/11/2013 11:46:44 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Posted this in John's AAR. Here is what the latest version of RA (6.0x) shows for early war American fighters. Can you compare them Dan and/or let me know what version this PBEM is so I can load it??

quote:

Pulling up RA 6.0x that isn't the final version, but should be correct for American fighters for early war ('42 to early '43). I would need to know what version this PBEM is to load it.

P-38E...5/42 - 5/42...24/mo (Replacements)
P-38F...8/42 - 9/42...40/mo (Production)
P-38G...10/42 - 5/43..20/mo (Prod) means 60/mo
P-38H...6/43 - 11/43..20/mo (Prod) means 80/mo
P-38J...12/43 - 5/44..20/mo (Prod) means 100/mo
P-38L...6/44 - end....30/mo (Prod) means 130/mo

This is an increase from stock.

P-40E...12/41 - 10/42...45/mo
P-40K...9/42 - 7/43 ....65/mo

F4F-4 Wildcat...3/42 - 4/43...45/mo

Either there is a mix up in the mod that has no P-38s being produced or by accident the production was turned off.


_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3540
Page:   <<   < prev  116 117 [118] 119 120   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  116 117 [118] 119 120   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

5.032