Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

In scn 2 the IJN player can produce a limitless number of planes and trained pilots. That's bad enough for an Allied player to contend this, but this "RA" mod also throws into the mix 3 extra Shokaku class CVs and more BBs/CAs from what I can see. Meanwhile the Allies get a few merchants that can be converted into CVEs.....well whoop-de-do!

I would only play as the Allies in this mod if the IJN player was new to the game, which John clearly isn't. This mod is a fantasy wet dream for an IJN player, simple as that.

I've done some work on RA, but not like the amount John and FatR have done over the years. It was based on Scenario 1 with the positives from DaBabes added in by JWE/Symon. There is a trade off in Japanese CVs. They get fewer than in stock, but the better Shokaku Class and earlier. Some Naval Guards and SNLF are now in brigades with some better defensive capabilities thrown in. The IJN gets some ships better and has some foreknowledge thrown in. The IJA is not much different than stock except the air is slightly better. The army is unchanged.

In RA 6.0 Japan is tamed down some more while I've advocated for a few more positives for the Allies vs this version which is 5.7.

I agree with others that the Allies can be aggressive, but not too super aggressive this early in the war.

How about air groups? Are there extra air groups for Japan? That is what creates the difference in capabilities.

Well he has the original 6KB CVs, Junyo/Hiyo and the 6 Unyru's to come, so how can he have less than stock?

quote:

You’ve pursued an extremely aggressive early war approach for the Allies. Are you surprised your pools are empty?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

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.

Yes, VPs are of course something to take into consideration. But from the AARs I follow and my own game a 1:1 ratio is quite common at this period? So the Japanese player isn´t losing points. He is breaking even. Of course this is a generalisation but you have to look at the loss ratio and not production when it comes to VPs. Right? While this might have a small effect on Japanese auto victory I don´t think any Jap player would consider a 1:1 VP ratio in exchange for completely removing the allied air force to mid 43 as a bad exchange?

The problem lies in human nature. One side is given the ability to completely alter the production system and tailor it to perfection. Optimising it to something far beyond what possible in the real war. Of course any self respecting Japanese player would do this. Why limit yourself to historical boundaries when you can do far better? And over the years Japanese players has become REALLY good at this so they can squeeze every little drop out of it.

This while the other side is shackled by historical restraints and the actual happenings in the war. Of course things are going to go bonkers? I think CR has a very valid point when it comes to the fun factor. There is a reason for many players pulling a "sir robin" in one way or another. Its just counter productive to stand and fight at most locations. Allied pools can´t sustain it and you can lose 2-3 months of replacements in a single Tojo sweep. Then the Japanese players complain that the allied player pulled a "sir robin". Doesn´t sound like much fun for either side?

Same thing holds true for on map pilot training. Basically that gave BOTH sides unlimited pilots far better trained than was ever possible. Was the engine built around pilots having a MINIMUM of 70 as their major skill? And true to human nature both sides squeeze every little drop out of the system. The game is built around historical events and limitations yet both sides contribute to driving things to its very edge by squeezing every drop out what we can customize. And then we all sit down and complain when the engine falls apart around us?

My bet is that if you scale everything back to more "normal" levels both sides will have a more enjoyable experience. Find that spot where the devs said "this is our baseline" and stay there. Personally as I said before I think PDU ON is disruptive for the game as a whole. I think the game is meant to be played with it OFF and I think thats how it should be played (I think this was even confirmed by one of the devs?). But for some reason PDU ON has become the norm. So we sit down and moan about the game getting weird when we are in reality playing it in a way the devs never intended for us to do.

In my game in late July 1942 I've destroyed about 660 more planes than Japan has. They have equal VP ratings for each side: 2 for heavy bombers (I actually don't know if Japanese 2Es are considered "heavy") 1 for fighters. CR has said many times he's way, way ahead of John in pure numbers of destroyed planes. That may not get all the way back to equity, but it's not nothing. IF the players respect and play for VPs. An "it's just a journey" Japan player won't care how many planes/VPs he throws away and it can become the "Hulk smash!" hour.

Second, at this point in the game's lifespan it's not realistic for any Allied player to bewail his pools. We all know how they are and how they work. Same with what we face.

Third, the game and the victory conditions are balanced on the models. You can't just throw in, say, 30% more Allied air metal and expect not to break the thing.

Fourth, I think there is too much reliance on the air side of the game. My fighter pools are as flat as CR's. I have not spared them, I have not Sir Robined. But look in my AAR at the situation in Burma. Japan has total air superiority. I take losses on the ground, but the battle is not lost. If the Allied player uses terrain, local forts, built forts, AA LCUs, internal LCU AA devices, and pays attention to LCU leadership and mode (Reserve is woefully underused I think) he can stand--for awhile--on a location and take the rain of death from the skies. Air is one leg of three in the game, but GG put the most detail there so a lot of players focus on it. It's better to have air superiority of course, but if you don't you have more options than run or die. IMO of course.

I think you have excellent points on training. It's too fast IMO, and moreover it's too uniform. Not every pilot can be Chuck Yeager no matter how much he practices. Some guys are just average or below (50% in fact.) But your best point is the one on PDU. Well, PDU and Scen 1. THOSE ARE THE HISTORIC NORMS. But nobody plays them. They aren't "fun." That's not the devs' fault. They put them in, they put in the option to go around them. With the editor the option to REALLY go around them.

Count the number of Opponents Wanted ads with Scen 1, PDU Off. It won't take you long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Allied player is going to win if he just does not lose his head in 42.

Japanese aircraft numbers are only a concern until mid 1943

By 1944 regardless of numbers the Allied air force is going to win at the point of attack. Allied aircraft are better.

By mid 44 as the Allied player you are going to be embarrassed at your riches. Everything you have is better than Japan has. You will really regret bitching about 1942. I know I do..

Give these poor deluded JFBs a break and throw them a bone. Let them have some fun in 42. It is a long war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In my game in late July 1942 I've destroyed about 660 more planes than Japan has. They have equal VP ratings for each side: 2 for heavy bombers (I actually don't know if Japanese 2Es are considered "heavy") 1 for fighters. CR has said many times he's way, way ahead of John in pure numbers of destroyed planes. That may not get all the way back to equity, but it's not nothing. IF the players respect and play for VPs. An "it's just a journey" Japan player won't care how many planes/VPs he throws away and it can become the "Hulk smash!" hour.

Second, at this point in the game's lifespan it's not realistic for any Allied player to bewail his pools. We all know how they are and how they work. Same with what we face.

Third, the game and the victory conditions are balanced on the models. You can't just throw in, say, 30% more Allied air metal and expect not to break the thing.

Fourth, I think there is too much reliance on the air side of the game. My fighter pools are as flat as CR's. I have not spared them, I have not Sir Robined. But look in my AAR at the situation in Burma. Japan has total air superiority. I take losses on the ground, but the battle is not lost. If the Allied player uses terrain, local forts, built forts, AA LCUs, internal LCU AA devices, and pays attention to LCU leadership and mode (Reserve is woefully underused I think) he can stand--for awhile--on a location and take the rain of death from the skies. Air is one leg of three in the game, but GG put the most detail there so a lot of players focus on it. It's better to have air superiority of course, but if you don't you have more options than run or die. IMO of course.

I think you have excellent points on training. It's too fast IMO, and moreover it's too uniform. Not every pilot can be Chuck Yeager no matter how much he practices. Some guys are just average or below (50% in fact.) But your best point is the one on PDU. Well, PDU and Scen 1. THOSE ARE THE HISTORIC NORMS. But nobody plays them. They aren't "fun." That's not the devs' fault. They put them in, they put in the option to go around them. With the editor the option to REALLY go around them.

Count the number of Opponents Wanted ads with Scen 1, PDU Off. It won't take you long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In my game in late July 1942 I've destroyed about 660 more planes than Japan has. They have equal VP ratings for each side: 2 for heavy bombers (I actually don't know if Japanese 2Es are considered "heavy") 1 for fighters. CR has said many times he's way, way ahead of John in pure numbers of destroyed planes. That may not get all the way back to equity, but it's not nothing. IF the players respect and play for VPs. An "it's just a journey" Japan player won't care how many planes/VPs he throws away and it can become the "Hulk smash!" hour.

Second, at this point in the game's lifespan it's not realistic for any Allied player to bewail his pools. We all know how they are and how they work. Same with what we face.

Third, the game and the victory conditions are balanced on the models. You can't just throw in, say, 30% more Allied air metal and expect not to break the thing.

Fourth, I think there is too much reliance on the air side of the game. My fighter pools are as flat as CR's. I have not spared them, I have not Sir Robined. But look in my AAR at the situation in Burma. Japan has total air superiority. I take losses on the ground, but the battle is not lost. If the Allied player uses terrain, local forts, built forts, AA LCUs, internal LCU AA devices, and pays attention to LCU leadership and mode (Reserve is woefully underused I think) he can stand--for awhile--on a location and take the rain of death from the skies. Air is one leg of three in the game, but GG put the most detail there so a lot of players focus on it. It's better to have air superiority of course, but if you don't you have more options than run or die. IMO of course.

I think you have excellent points on training. It's too fast IMO, and moreover it's too uniform. Not every pilot can be Chuck Yeager no matter how much he practices. Some guys are just average or below (50% in fact.) But your best point is the one on PDU. Well, PDU and Scen 1. THOSE ARE THE HISTORIC NORMS. But nobody plays them. They aren't "fun." That's not the devs' fault. They put them in, they put in the option to go around them. With the editor the option to REALLY go around them.

Count the number of Opponents Wanted ads with Scen 1, PDU Off. It won't take you long.

Yes, but how many of those are japanese OPS losses? The 1:1 ratio I was talking about was meant as 1:1 air vs air ratio. I´m not sure but I don´t think the Japanese have any planes considered "heavy" but only the allied 4Es get this designation?

I do agree with you on what you say about VPs. But I´m just not so sure a Japanese player considers this a stopping block or hindrance to throw everything he has against the allied air force. Thats what I meant about getting a 1:1 VP ratio for knocking out the allied air force. Some Japanese input on this would be interesting!

I certainly agree with you on the point of more allied planes. That is not the way to go. As with many things even a small increase can have huge ramifications. Thats why I think it would be better to tackle the abundance of Japanese pilots. At least early game. And I agree with you 100% on the points you bring up on training.

I think its a shame that almost nobody plays SCEN 1 PDU OFF. I think it might bring a more balanced and fun experience for both players. Especially 41-43. I certainly understand why Japanese players shun it. If I could choose between having unlimited resources or not. Of course I would go for the option of having them. But if I was a japanese player I would also probably rather face 2000 Wildkittens than 2000 Hellcats?

I think its that "HULK SMASH" mentality. The Japanese side want lots and lots of stuff because they think they must have them to stay competitive. I think in 90% of the cases these extra toys only leads to overextension and a premature ending of the game. There are a few SCEN 1 games running where the Japanese player have done very well. So the SCEN 2 option isn´t a requirement for a successful Japanese campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


Japan, even in a scenario 2 environement (and in RA, I think, it's the same) is a paper tiger. Strong, yes, but its strength has no depth. Once you start to lose some warships and your best navy pilots, it's a downhill. And it takes just few unlucky battles to cripple your navy or your pre-war pilots pool.
As CrSutton always says, if the allies do not do stupid things in 1942 and keep their CVs alive, they cannot lose. Simply cannot.
Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.
I strongly suggest to any allied player to play, at least once, with Japan... you'll know its weaknesses and understand how tough is life on the other side of the hill

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.

Well, that was kind of my point. Perhaps many Japanese players simply go too far ending up with too much land to cover. I can´t remember what game it was but the Japanese lost their CVs kind of early and switched to defensive early. This according to the allied player caused him a massive amount of problems having to go on the offensive early and hitting a well prepared defense instead of a overextended empire with no prepared defenses at all.

But of course Japan is going to lose. There is no denying that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Even in a successful game, Japan won't be able to keep a strong extended perimeter too long. They can seem strong at certain points, but the map is so huge that the allies can decide easily to attack where the japs aren't strong enough...and believe me when I say that they CANNOT be strong everywhere.

Well, that was kind of my point. Perhaps many Japanese players simply go too far ending up with too much land to cover. I can´t remember what game it was but the Japanese lost their CVs kind of early and switched to defensive early. This according to the allied player caused him a massive amount of problems having to go on the offensive early and hitting a well prepared defense instead of a overextended empire with no prepared defenses at all.

But of course Japan is going to lose. There is no denying that.

I think what GJ is saying though too is that even with all of the CVs, even just going to historical, even if everything goes to plans and battles are won early, there is too much land to cover as Japan to have a strong defense everywhere. Yo only know how thin the lines are when you play the dark side into at least 43. There just aren't enough troops to cover everything, not enough AA to protect the vitals, not enough ships to sustain inevitable losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Yes, but how many of those are japanese OPS losses?

A lot. But the biggest component of the difference is flak losses.

The 1:1 ratio I was talking about was meant as 1:1 air vs air ratio.

I'll take a loss wherever I can get one. Same VPs.

I´m not sure but I don´t think the Japanese have any planes considered "heavy" but only the allied 4Es get this designation?

I wish the manual were more clear. A Mavis isn't a heavy bomber OR a fighter. A Betty isn't a fighter, but a medium-bomber. The manual only describes two buckets.

I do agree with you on what you say about VPs. But I´m just not so sure a Japanese player considers this a stopping block or hindrance to throw everything he has against the allied air force. Thats what I meant about getting a 1:1 VP ratio for knocking out the allied air force. Some Japanese input on this would be interesting!

True. And I don't question a Japanese player going all out in 1942. But if a duo is playing for VPs the Japanese player would recognize it's a risk. And more importantly it's not the only option open to him if he considers the whole game span. If not playing for VPs it's a whole different dynamic.

I think its a shame that almost nobody plays SCEN 1 PDU OFF. I think it might bring a more balanced and fun experience for both players. Especially 41-43. I certainly understand why Japanese players shun it. If I could choose between having unlimited resources or not. Of course I would go for the option of having them. But if I was a japanese player I would also probably rather face 2000 Wildkittens than 2000 Hellcats?

Yesterday I was poking around in the depths of the forum archives and doing a little wool-gathering. Looking at 2010 posts I see--sadly--hundreds of screen names of departed players. Some of them were titans in their day. Treespider. Nik, pauk, Mynok. Many others. And skimming scores of posts I see a not-so-subtle change in the culture of the game from those days. Perhaps the early days near first-ship attracted more mature, thoughtful wargamers than the newbies now, or maybe I'm just an old grump. But I don't see the devs speaking to Japanese Oz invasions, or India campaigns. Or the old timers much either. I see more respect for GG's core design decisions, especially on Japan fighting a defensive war after the first six months, and the nobility of doing that while trying to rope in the beast of economy management and optimization. I DON'T see a lot of posts saying "Japan can't win." I think that notion was foreign to GG when he laid down the matrix, and to the AE team. I DO see "Japan can't win the war" and I think this is what's been corrupted since. "Japan can win the game" has fallen by the wayside in the forum culture. The spate of HR debates is one offshoot. The neutering of "non-historical" items in an abstract game has been another. And a third has been the rise of mods like RA, which seek to make the war-winning and not the game-winning paramount.

Are mods like RA good for the sustainability of AE? Maybe. I don't see a lot of newbie posters having the depth of understanding, and the gaming maturity seen in some of those old, departed titans and the devs themselves, to want to step up and play Japan as it was designed by GG to be played. Maybe mods that give Japan a chance to win the war are the only way over the even-longer term to get people to play that side.

I might not deserve a vote on this because I admittedly can't play Japan. Just can't do it in my head. Can't root for them to sink "my" navy, given what I think of their wartime culture and government. I've tried to play them in AI and I've never gotten beyond six months, holding my nose the whole time. So I need people who can do that to keep stepping up and taking the opposing side if I want to keep playing this amazing game. But if my only choice becomes playing an RA-type mod, or worse its grandson, I'll probably have to stop playing. If I want a Hulk smash! game I have lots of better options already on my HD or at Steam, with modern graphics and sound and UIs that don't make me blind and weeping.

I think its that "HULK SMASH" mentality. The Japanese side want lots and lots of stuff because they think they must have them to stay competitive. I think in 90% of the cases these extra toys only leads to overextension and a premature ending of the game. There are a few SCEN 1 games running where the Japanese player have done very well. So the SCEN 2 option isn´t a requirement for a successful Japanese campaign.

Robert Heinlein wrote a great juvenile novel called "Tunnel in the Sky" where high school seniors went off to wild planets through a Stargate-type thing as a final exam for a survival course. They could take any and all equipment they chose. The hero, a pretty smart kid (hey, it's Heinlein) decides to take only a very fine knife. His theory is if he has only a knife he'll be very, very careful about what he gets himself into. And it works. In the first day after a disaster closes the gate he finds a kid with the very latest whiz-bang energy gun. Dead. And the person who killed him--not with an energy gun--left it behind as it only would slow them down.

Japanese players in Scen 1 with PDU off have to be a lot more careful about their assets than RA-mod players. They can still win the game--our hero survives years with his knife--but they have to be smart about it. The Hulk would have been eaten by stobor. (Read the book. )

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Dan, this AAR is growing in posts count so fast that I couldn't even understand what happened that upset you so much. You're defenetly winning our private match

However I've faced your very same problem against Rader... during the battle of Karachi my pools were completely empty...and I mean completely. I had to abandon the airfields to their destiny. But I had enough AA there to prevent his Helens from doing anything without suffering crushing losses... and that buyed me time...time for the forts to go up...so, i'd say, you still have chances here. Don't give up.

Anyway it seems to me that you got a bit tired with the game/forum etc... I know how it feels. You probably devoted too many energies to the game/AAR and now feel a bit "emptied". Relax a bit. Take a break...and then see how you feel about the game in general. Been there too

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Here's an email I just sent to NYGiants, who asked to check my files and fighter pools:

Michael,

I was on the road yesterday, visiting my dad in a hospital in Asheville, NC. Long day, so I'm trying to catch my breath and catch up at work.

I did the math a few minutes ago - In the game to date (1/1/43), I have received a total of 66 P-38G. That consists of 33 lost in battle (25 a-2-a and 8 ops), 25 on map (8 FG/36 FS has all 25), plus 8 in the pools.

So, if the Allies are to receive 60 per month, as I think you were saying in your posts, I've only received 1/3rd that amount. But if the total is supposed to be 20 per month, then I've received the right amount. In that case, the total is not sufficient (IMO) to permit the Allies to fight anything but a defensive war in 1942; certainly I have put myself in a position where the meager Allied pools do not permit a move as bold as what I did. But if I had another 120 P-38s, all bets are off. In two days of combat invovling roughly 450 Tojos, I lost a total of two P-38s (both of those were to ops, none in a-2-a).

I haven't looked at the P-39 totals. Too many aircraft involved, but I can only say that i haven't lost one in months and yet my pool is nearly dry. So something doesn't seem quite right, though that may be a figment of my imagination.

Take care,

Dan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I agree. That's one reason I don't understand all this "you lost! we assume you're throwing in the towel" sentiment.

In my game vs. Q-Ball, the Allied airforce in India was able to beat an all-out air assault by the Japanese for months. The P-38s were the key in that battle, and I was under the impression in planning this venture that I'd be in roughly the same position. But, for whatever reason, I seem to have far, far less P-38s. If I get them, the Allies will win the air battle (or lose it but inflict such devastating losses on Japan that's it's tantamount to the same thing). But even if the Allies ultimately lose in Sumatra, big deal! We're fighting in what should be Japanese territory, the Allies have exacted a tremendous toll on the Japanese infantry (which will only get worse), the Allies can afford to lose everything committed (not that I want to), and the Allies have laid out the infrastructure (units, supply, etc.) to prosecute the war going forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Dan, a break from the game (and the forum) is needed some now and then. I know that. I've done that. This game is so consuming that can wear you out sometimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sometime ago, I had a PM from a forumite inquiring if I was soaking off. Right on top of that PM came Chickenboy's posts in my AAR. Putting the two together - especially from the tone - was easy.

I was not, did not and have never used soaking off missions. I think my reputation is such that my word alone would be enough, but apparently not, which really bothered me. The more I thought about it, the angrier I got.

I will be glad to make my files available so that anybody can check and see what TFs were out there and how I handled things, though I can't imagine anyone would want to go to that much trouble. But if you do, you'll see that I've always had lots of traffic between Sabang and Ceylon (duh!) and that all the TFs that were there were legit - supply and reinforcements inbound, empties and cripples outbound, etc. When John sprung his carriers forward, I did my best to get everything out of harm's way and largely succeeded.

I hope you can understand that one who hasn't done something doesn't like being repeatedly accused of doing it.

But another thing that rankled is that it was John taking maximum advantage of the game mechanics to work a nonhistoric advantage, yet to my knowledge nobody has called him on it. So I get accused of doing something I didn't do, but John doesn't get called on something he did do.

What I'm speaking of is his use of carriers to leap forward 18 hexes into my main sea lane. His carriers were under constant patrol surveillance. I knew right where they were. In real life, I could have immediately recalled my TFs as soon as his carriers started forward, but due to the game mechanics, I had to wait 24 hours.

Nothing wrong with what he did. That's just the way the game works and we all do it and enjoy it. But I think you can see that he indeed used a nonhistoric capability to his fullest advantage. But when he did so, I was the one accused of bad faith.

Man, that chapped me.