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: Changing Situation

 
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: Changing Situation Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Changing Situation - 9/11/2013 11:40:37 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Good thoughts as always Andre.

I don't remember reading that the RA mod limits allied production other than what's in stock. It will be interesting to read what John says.

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 1441
RE: Changing Situation - 9/11/2013 11:49:27 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		I think my little comment about defeating him in detail was not only correct but caused "allied depression" syndrome. Congratulations!!!! The moral of the pixels is not nearly as precious as that of the CnC flesh & blood. You sir displayed type "I" (ice blood). I'm sure Dan will take another spin at some point. I will always wonder if the game with Nemo in the wings was not his downfall. It's not just a chess match. It's an adventure. A romantic adventure into the past. The style of play characterized by Nemo, displaying complete ambivalence towards losses at the expense of an attainable objective really isn't in the spirit of AE to me. Again. Kampai!!

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 1442
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 1:40:41 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks everyone for contributing to the decision and discussion here.

To answer specific questions:

1. The variant that Dan and I are playing is 5.7 I think. The Allied numbers are the same as Michael demonstrated with his Posting for 6.0. In RA we added more to starting pools of aircraft and RAISED (by a bit) many Allied starting production numbers. Felt that it was only fair. This Mod--especially the new 6.0--is now (I truly believe) a very well-balanced Mod. The Allied Player now gets many things to help counter the stronger Japanese Fleet in late-42/early-43. Cannot WAIT to see how 6.0 plays out. We drew the Japanese back some and raised the Allies up some. Bet these matches will be FUN!

2. Allied Fighter Pools seem to me to be realistic given the situation. For the Allies to go on the OFFENSIVE into the heart of the Empire in mid-1942 is a huge mistake (my opinion). They simply don't have the well-rounded resources to fight toe-to-toe. Given that I didn't respond rashly to the situation and took my time to build-up, set the table, and THEN push back in a systematic manner I think really aided the situation. The Allies have HUGE resources (even as early as 1942) but they don't have DEPTH within them. There is grave risk in making a strong offensive push this early in the game. My thoughts are that the pools are decent if the Allied Player is careful with the fights he wages. Dan is a great veteran of this game and KNOWS the dangers of what he was attempting to do.

3. An offensive like what he started present a huge OPPORTUNITY for the Empire. If you look back in the AAR you will see that I immediately grasped the opportunity as it was presented with the Sumatra Invasion. In my view, Dan's single biggest mistake is that he didn't go FAR ENOUGH. His lunge should have been to grab Sumatra AND Malaya OR Java. This would have presented such a challenge and inherent danger that I do not know if I could have recovered. While bold the plan wasn't bold enough. His passivity then allowed me to get the pieces in play and set-up the genuine opportunity for Japan to achieve a DECISIVE VICTORY by February--March 1943. Once I realized that this situation was Operation Cartwheel in reverse then the entire plan fell into place. IMO the Allied Forces would have been destroyed.

4. The decision to not evacuate northern and central Burma really worked. Many of you said to get out, fall back, and pray (paraphrase! ). I didn't and managed to hold the same line and beat his northern troops 3-4 times during the 6-8 weeks since the Invasion of Sumatra. His choice to place nearly all of his frontline fighters into Sabang really allowed my airpower to be a major factor in Burma negating a good chunk of his ground advantage. Would love to see if the offensive I had begun would have worked...

5. CR needed to open a second front and his move into Noumea was an attempt to do this but it was in the wrong place. Prudence led me to not pull out everything when I moved west. This decision allowed me to stymie his offensive from the very beginning and (since the last attack Jan 3rd scored a near 3-1 result. We were within a few days of 15,000 Allied Troops surrendering at Noumea (and the destruction of 5 Brigades).

This should provide some serious discussion potential...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/12/2013 1:45:46 AM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 1443
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 2:08:57 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I missed out of the HR comment. What do you mean regarding loosening HR?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1444
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:14:23 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Did some looking into RA 5.7 and did find something interesting within the Editor. Sent this note to Dan:


Hey Sir.

Just took the time to go through our Mod File. We’re in RA 5.7. The first three models of the P-38 are fine, however, the last three were set to ZERO production. While a great discovery, those three models come in later then where we are at: P-38H 6-43, P-38J 12-43, and P-38L is 6-44. This would have been a significant issue starting in June of 43 and I do not know how they could have been turned off but it is fantastic that you made me look. The earlier models are producing but the later ones are screwed up.

Gonna jump into 6.0 to see if the same issue is there as well.


While not impacting our current situation there would have been issues!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1445
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:20:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Same problem in the new unreleased variant 6.0. FIXED in both now.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1446
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:33:41 AM   
rev rico

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Did some looking into RA 5.7 and did find something interesting within the Editor. Sent this note to Dan:


Hey Sir.

Just took the time to go through our Mod File. We’re in RA 5.7. The first three models of the P-38 are fine, however, the last three were set to ZERO production. While a great discovery, those three models come in later then where we are at: P-38H 6-43, P-38J 12-43, and P-38L is 6-44. This would have been a significant issue starting in June of 43 and I do not know how they could have been turned off but it is fantastic that you made me look. The earlier models are producing but the later ones are screwed up.

Gonna jump into 6.0 to see if the same issue is there as well.


While not impacting our current situation there would have been issues!



Is there a way to correct a current game? I believe my opponent & I are in 5.7 and are in July 42. I'd hate to go on if something is wrong. Please advise.

thanks
Bob

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1447
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:37:47 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


(...) it is fantastic that you made me look. The earlier models are producing but the later ones are screwed up.





I'm sure this lift his sprits :-)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1448
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:53:29 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

2. Allied Fighter Pools seem to me to be realistic given the situation. For the Allies to go on the OFFENSIVE into the heart of the Empire in mid-1942 is a huge mistake (my opinion). They simply don't have the well-rounded resources to fight toe-to-toe. Given that I didn't respond rashly to the situation and took my time to build-up, set the table, and THEN push back in a systematic manner I think really aided the situation. The Allies have HUGE resources (even as early as 1942) but they don't have DEPTH within them. There is grave risk in making a strong offensive push this early in the game. My thoughts are that the pools are decent if the Allied Player is careful with the fights he wages. Dan is a great veteran of this game and KNOWS the dangers of what he was attempting to do.



Yes, that basically sums it up I think. Its was too early. Had CR pulled that move in mid 43 it would have been an entirely different story. The allies simply cannot sustain that heavy fighting in 42. As an allied player I strongly believe 42 is a time for small needle pins here and there and building up where the Japanese are not.

Allied fighter pools are extremely fragile. Even in 44. This has to govern every move an allied player do. "Can I sustain this and is it worth the cost"

If I remember correctly CR was struggling with fighter pools even before he pulled off his invasion. He was warned numerous times in his AAR. I think reality catching up with him was a hard blow (as it would be to anyone). I almost quit my game two times but my opponent persuaded me to continue. I´m glad he did because it has been a great learning experience.

Hopefully after getting some time away from the game CR will realize that while this is a huge setback he can still recover. By late 43 and early 44 he will be as strong as ever. It would really be a shame to see this game go end like this.

Besides, you did do everything right and CR paid the price for it. So well done!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1449
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 5:35:51 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		As long as the Allied player keeps his carriers intact, I see no disaster that can not be recovered from. I told this to Dan.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 1450
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 5:43:11 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Same problem in the new unreleased variant 6.0. FIXED in both now.



In the playtest scenario 56 that you sent out, the P-38 production was right.

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1451
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 6:11:24 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As long as the Allied player keeps his carriers intact, I see no disaster that can not be recovered from. I told this to Dan.


Even losing all your carries including the first batch of CVEs and most of you navy you can recover as the allies.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1452
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 1:19:49 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		I'll be the first to say I don't work in the editor very much but looking at the models in scenario 1 stock I'm confused as I look at the build rate for the P-38s.


I went to bed last night thinking you just get the groups that come on the map.

Someone clarifying what's happening here would be cool.





< Message edited by SuluSea -- 9/12/2013 1:24:54 PM >

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 1453
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 1:27:21 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I'll be the first to say I don't work in the editor very much but looking at the models in scenario 1 stock I'm confused as I look at the build rate for the P-38s.




Isn't it because it's a replacement not a build rate? So it's accumulative through the different models. I learned this from several players very familiar with the Allied side when I was trying to put together my sheet of total Allied aircraft throughout the war. It's mentioned in this post.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3359465

So John, you may want to check because you may have just added a bunch of P-38s to the Allied OOB!





_____________________________

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

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 1454
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 1:41:41 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Its the other way around. Production rate carries over to whatever model its upgrading to. Replacement rate doesn´t.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1455
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 1:53:53 PM   
ny59giants


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

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 9/14/2013 3:49:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1456
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 2:18:34 PM   
Crackaces


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I missed out of the HR comment. What do you mean regarding loosening HR?



I can say from my standpoint that the home rule on strategic bombing dramatically changes the game in not so subtle ways. For example, you do not have to defend any strategic targets, and thus you can amass your fighter airframes strictly for the offense at this point. That ability to concentrate and the low airframe pools makes a IJFB wet dream, but not a very good game for the Allies. CR agreed to this HR, but I am not sure he was totally astute to the intended/unintended consequences of this HR.

_____________________________

"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 John 3rd)
Post #: 1457
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 2:49:52 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

2. Allied Fighter Pools seem to me to be realistic given the situation. For the Allies to go on the OFFENSIVE into the heart of the Empire in mid-1942 is a huge mistake (my opinion). They simply don't have the well-rounded resources to fight toe-to-toe. Given that I didn't respond rashly to the situation and took my time to build-up, set the table, and THEN push back in a systematic manner I think really aided the situation. The Allies have HUGE resources (even as early as 1942) but they don't have DEPTH within them. There is grave risk in making a strong offensive push this early in the game. My thoughts are that the pools are decent if the Allied Player is careful with the fights he wages. Dan is a great veteran of this game and KNOWS the dangers of what he was attempting to do.



Yes, that basically sums it up I think. Its was too early. Had CR pulled that move in mid 43 it would have been an entirely different story. The allies simply cannot sustain that heavy fighting in 42. As an allied player I strongly believe 42 is a time for small needle pins here and there and building up where the Japanese are not.

Allied fighter pools are extremely fragile. Even in 44. This has to govern every move an allied player do. "Can I sustain this and is it worth the cost"

If I remember correctly CR was struggling with fighter pools even before he pulled off his invasion. He was warned numerous times in his AAR. I think reality catching up with him was a hard blow (as it would be to anyone). I almost quit my game two times but my opponent persuaded me to continue. I´m glad he did because it has been a great learning experience.

Hopefully after getting some time away from the game CR will realize that while this is a huge setback he can still recover. By late 43 and early 44 he will be as strong as ever. It would really be a shame to see this game go end like this.

Besides, you did do everything right and CR paid the price for it. So well done!


Thank You Sir.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 1458
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 2:52:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I'll be the first to say I don't work in the editor very much but looking at the models in scenario 1 stock I'm confused as I look at the build rate for the P-38s.




Isn't it because it's a replacement not a build rate? So it's accumulative through the different models. I learned this from several players very familiar with the Allied side when I was trying to put together my sheet of total Allied aircraft throughout the war. It's mentioned in this post.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3359465

So John, you may want to check because you may have just added a bunch of P-38s to the Allied OOB!







CRAP! Bet you are right.

Air Production is not my thing. This was/is FatR's balliwick.

Michael: Phone Call coming and have the Editor up for the Mod. We need to fix anything I just did last night. Am sending the current files...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1459
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 2:54:37 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I missed out of the HR comment. What do you mean regarding loosening HR?



I can say from my standpoint that the home rule on strategic bombing dramatically changes the game in not so subtle ways. For example, you do not have to defend any strategic targets, and thus you can amass your fighter airframes strictly for the offense at this point. That ability to concentrate and the low airframe pools makes a IJFB wet dream, but not a very good game for the Allies. CR agreed to this HR, but I am not sure he was totally astute to the intended/unintended consequences of this HR.


Dan WANTED that HR so I wouldn't bomb China's Industry. I wanted it but not so late. I think the Allied capability for Strategic Bombing really become reality until somewhere in 1943. Thus, the goal was to have HR in this timeframe (1943).


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1460
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 3:05:52 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The bottom line with the Sumatra Situation is that my opponent was realizing the hammer and axe were about to be wielded in Sumatra. IT would have taken months but once I had Sabang hemmed in and little chance of support it was OVER. My march up the western side of Sumatra (taking Nias and about to take Sinabang) as well as first serious moves on Trinket and Great Nicobar was a herald for the end of this Allied Offensive. With 8-10 Engineering units ready to deploy those bases would have gradually increased and then housed Miss Betty and Nell finishing his chances of resupply.

A desperate CV Battle would have been the probable outcome. The Japanese Side would have fielded an intact, concentrated Kido Butai AND 4-500 IJN LBA. It would have been FUN to watch as the outcome would certainly (IMO) have been a Japanese victory. The addition of LBA would have made all the difference...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1461
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 3:11:34 PM   
Crackaces


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I missed out of the HR comment. What do you mean regarding loosening HR?



I can say from my standpoint that the home rule on strategic bombing dramatically changes the game in not so subtle ways. For example, you do not have to defend any strategic targets, and thus you can amass your fighter airframes strictly for the offense at this point. That ability to concentrate and the low airframe pools makes a IJFB wet dream, but not a very good game for the Allies. CR agreed to this HR, but I am not sure he was totally astute to the intended/unintended consequences of this HR.


Dan WANTED that HR so I wouldn't bomb China's Industry. I wanted it but not so late. I think the Allied capability for Strategic Bombing really become reality until somewhere in 1943. Thus, the goal was to have HR in this timeframe (1943).



In real life a small and in this game would be a totally insignificant raid [if it were possible] changed the complete complexion of the war. The Doolittle raid forced Japan to defend the home islands from CV raids and possible Strat bombing ..

Policy has intended and unintended consequences. No matter the intended consequences, one unintended consequence is the ability for the IJ to concentrate Airframes into a pure offensive mode with no fear of strategic retaliation. Not even a light "Doolittle" like raid of say B-25's smacking oil resources in the DEI. That Home rule from my perspective enabled what you have today.

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 9/12/2013 3:43:53 PM >

_____________________________

"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 John 3rd)
Post #: 1462
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 3:26:56 PM   
ny59giants


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

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 9/14/2013 3:49:21 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1463
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:07:40 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I missed out of the HR comment. What do you mean regarding loosening HR?



I can say from my standpoint that the home rule on strategic bombing dramatically changes the game in not so subtle ways. For example, you do not have to defend any strategic targets, and thus you can amass your fighter airframes strictly for the offense at this point. That ability to concentrate and the low airframe pools makes a IJFB wet dream, but not a very good game for the Allies. CR agreed to this HR, but I am not sure he was totally astute to the intended/unintended consequences of this HR.


Dan WANTED that HR so I wouldn't bomb China's Industry. I wanted it but not so late. I think the Allied capability for Strategic Bombing really become reality until somewhere in 1943. Thus, the goal was to have HR in this timeframe (1943).



Doesn't your strategic bombing HR go THROUGH 1943 until January 1, 1944? Big difference.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1464
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:14:06 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Are there other HRs, like restrictions on bombing ground troops or ships?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1465
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 4:37:55 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

CRAP! Bet you are right.

Air Production is not my thing. This was/is FatR's balliwick.

Michael: Phone Call coming and have the Editor up for the Mod. We need to fix anything I just did last night. Am sending the current files...


Yes, you did screw the pooch here. I loaded newest version and it is .....


As John obviously cant check Dan's thread. I'll direct NY59Giant to check a response i did in his thread.
I basicly think NY59Giant has it wrong here and i PMed with him before on this issue with out any result. IMHO NY59Giant misunderstand the subbtle differences between replacements and prodcution and there it leads to some wrong conlusions.

Thats isnt to say or not whether u should up or not production, but IMO NY59Giant has some things in terms of game mechanics factually wrong. I obviously can be wrong and he can be right so i think before u make any changes if changes are made on those grounds only. you should to talk with a 3rd party u trust with undestanding the Allied production.

This has nothing to do with the discussion on whether to up allied planes or not only a question of getting teh facts strait or not as it might be. As i understand it Timofte was repsonsible for the Allied Air OOB and i have emailed him for clarification ans shall happily return to tell the results, either way.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/12/2013 5:23:21 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1466
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 5:28:58 PM   
ny59giants


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

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 9/14/2013 3:49:37 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 1467
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 5:46:53 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Ok. So we agree that its a deviation from the stanadart scn and thats fine its ur mod to make.

Np here and move on,

Rasmus

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1468
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 6:12:28 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		I may be late to the discussion, and I like Dan, so don't take this the wrong way.

The problem is HE ran his pools dry and is throwing in the towel. The HR on strategic bombing is big here. I don't know if we said the same in our PBEM game. If we do, we gave Japan a HUGE advantage from day one.



< Message edited by jeffk3510 -- 9/12/2013 6:13:01 PM >

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 1469
RE: Changing Situation - 9/12/2013 7:58:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I missed out of the HR comment. What do you mean regarding loosening HR?



I can say from my standpoint that the home rule on strategic bombing dramatically changes the game in not so subtle ways. For example, you do not have to defend any strategic targets, and thus you can amass your fighter airframes strictly for the offense at this point. That ability to concentrate and the low airframe pools makes a IJFB wet dream, but not a very good game for the Allies. CR agreed to this HR, but I am not sure he was totally astute to the intended/unintended consequences of this HR.


Dan WANTED that HR so I wouldn't bomb China's Industry. I wanted it but not so late. I think the Allied capability for Strategic Bombing really become reality until somewhere in 1943. Thus, the goal was to have HR in this timeframe (1943).



Doesn't your strategic bombing HR go THROUGH 1943 until January 1, 1944? Big difference.


Yes: I believe it was to Jan 1, 1944. Think we agreed on that as sort of an arbitrary date. Heck...I wouldn't have an issue moving that up to June of 1943. Doesn't really matter to me...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1470
Page:   <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Changing Situation Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   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

0.656