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: Wild Sheep Chase

 
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: Wild Sheep Chase Page: <<   < prev  80 81 [82] 83 84   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 2:13:32 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		I think you biggest stumbling block to expanding LI in '42 is simple: If you expand 1000 LI, you won't be able to expand 1000 ac/eng factories. Are you willing to trade off that? All that mid and late war R&D and engine expansion to get the bonus ... you won't have supply to do that. Are you willing to fight with Oscar/Nate instead of Tojo in '42? Are you willing to fight Tojo instead of Frank in '43?

Again, its simple numbers. There is a finite amount of supply and most players burn through all they have early and then need '42 to recover and are barely keeping even until about May 42. Now if you never have less than 1.5M supply in Tokyo from Dec 7, 41 through Jun42, then you are a candidate to consider building LI. If on the other hand, your supply in Tokyo drops to 500K or lower in Tokyo in that period, that means you will have to re-configure your ac/eng build plan and reduce it by 1000 factories.

I know that I would really struggle to find that 1M supply. But that's just me ... YMMV.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 2431
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 9:37:12 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This was my strategy early for almost a year. The problem is that it takes fuel!


But you offset that with the supply you generate from your LI expansion which doesn't require fuel.


But you then can't run HI as long which makes 2x supply for every HI point!

The point is, one way or another the Japanese economy will turn sour. Some will taste it earlier, some can deal with a bit of skum floating on their morning coffee for a while longer.

Against a determined, aggressive Allied player who takes measured risks often, the pace will wear down the Japanese economy. Period. There is no winning late against a good opponent. It's just along slow slide. Still a lot of fun, though, to do what you can.

I think this is good for the game, and overall could mitigate the constant cries about over-production, R n D and other things the Japanese can do they couldn't do historically. When you see that it still all comes to nought due to the other non-historical Allied advantages of pace, massive concentrations of ground bombing troops, etc, then people will realize it's pretty well balanced out.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 2432
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 10:01:19 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think you biggest stumbling block to expanding LI in '42 is simple: If you expand 1000 LI, you won't be able to expand 1000 ac/eng factories. Are you willing to trade off that? All that mid and late war R&D and engine expansion to get the bonus ... you won't have supply to do that. Are you willing to fight with Oscar/Nate instead of Tojo in '42? Are you willing to fight Tojo instead of Frank in '43?

Again, its simple numbers. There is a finite amount of supply and most players burn through all they have early and then need '42 to recover and are barely keeping even until about May 42. Now if you never have less than 1.5M supply in Tokyo from Dec 7, 41 through Jun42, then you are a candidate to consider building LI. If on the other hand, your supply in Tokyo drops to 500K or lower in Tokyo in that period, that means you will have to re-configure your ac/eng build plan and reduce it by 1000 factories.

I know that I would really struggle to find that 1M supply. But that's just me ... YMMV.


Maybe Pax, but after the LI start going you are getting that extra production of supply as well, and maybe we don't need some of these frames as early as we get them anyway. The Tojo comes whether you add R n D or not in Autumn 42. The Frank has a factory partially repaired that will push it forward a bit, and you will want to add at least another if not two more. There are a lot of planes we push forward that we don't probably HAVE to have so early.

The ones I'd want are the Frank, the Judy, the Jack, the Sam and the Grace. At 3 x 30 for each, that's not so much. I'd also want a bit of NF production to start early on both IJA and IJN lines. The rest of the planes I'm finding interesting, but not necessary. The Jill comes very quickly, the Helen does as well. The Frances is a good plane to add into the mix, but it doesn't have to come much earlier. Maybe a few months. The A6M line is a dead end and once you get to the A6M5 the rest are really not absolutely necessary, and really don't need extra R n D spending.

R n D is really fun to do but really not that critical to fighting hard in defense.

Most Allied players won't start an offensive until late 42 or early 43. If you have the Jill and Judy by then, at least the A5M3a and the Tojo, you're probably fine. It's a late war focus, and the early going is more about good positioning and pilot quality anyway.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2433
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 11:19:21 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Sorry to stir up this hornet's nest in your AAR obvert. I made a little spreadsheet to calculate supply cost/production effects from building LI. I checked the bases in the Home Islands and there are 20 bases that have manpower <=5, LI and with no more than one other factory (armament, vehicle, engine or aircraft). I figure the Allied player wouldn't bother to bomb these factories with the intention of getting massive fires to destroy everything. There's probably not enough to warrant wasting valuable 4E bombers on them. Anyway, if each of these LI factories is increased by 50 starting on 7 Dec 41, they will be completely repaired in 50 days (25 Jan 42). At this point 1.1 million supply (thanks Spidery) would have been spent and 25,500 would have been recouped. On 3 Jan 45, the 1.1 million supply would be recouped. After that, you now have a positive cash flow of 1000 supply points per turn. At this point in the game, is it worth it?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2434
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 11:25:33 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Some other info to consider...

This is just based on the starting infrastructure in Honshu. Assuming sufficient resources and fuel, Honshu produces 567,750 supply per month. If the Allied player totally destroys Osaka and Tokyo (by far the two largest producers on the island), that monthly supply production drops to 150,750 a month. Would an extra 30,000 supply a month from the extra 1000 LI really matter at this point?

One thing I am going to do is to put massive air defenses in those cities. Not sure if it will matter though after reading this AAR.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 2435
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 1:07:16 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Sorry to stir up this hornet's nest in your AAR obvert. I made a little spreadsheet to calculate supply cost/production effects from building LI. I checked the bases in the Home Islands and there are 20 bases that have manpower <=5, LI and with no more than one other factory (armament, vehicle, engine or aircraft). I figure the Allied player wouldn't bother to bomb these factories with the intention of getting massive fires to destroy everything. There's probably not enough to warrant wasting valuable 4E bombers on them. Anyway, if each of these LI factories is increased by 50 starting on 7 Dec 41, they will be completely repaired in 50 days (25 Jan 42). At this point 1.1 million supply (thanks Spidery) would have been spent and 25,500 would have been recouped. On 3 Jan 45, the 1.1 million supply would be recouped. After that, you now have a positive cash flow of 1000 supply points per turn. At this point in the game, is it worth it?


Well, I'd say yes as long as those expenditures early don't knock back your ability to fight, hold the line and get what you need done in the first four months. Also, your R n D would have to be prioritized to accommodate for this.
quote:


Some other info to consider...

This is just based on the starting infrastructure in Honshu. Assuming sufficient resources and fuel, Honshu produces 567,750 supply per month. If the Allied player totally destroys Osaka and Tokyo (by far the two largest producers on the island), that monthly supply production drops to 150,750 a month. Would an extra 30,000 supply a month from the extra 1000 LI really matter at this point?

One thing I am going to do is to put massive air defenses in those cities. Not sure if it will matter though after reading this AAR.


Does your calculation take into account refinery supply production?

The other major focus is to be organized so that by mid-44 ALL factories and repairs are finished other than some final R n D repairs if absolutely needed. All fort building in the HI should also be completed by then. So with no 'extra' drains on supply, then this bumped up supply producing from the added LI should keep building a nice bonus. Supply itself can be burned up in the bombings though too, so it could all go for nought.

I think it's a matter of strategic choice. All early, balanced through the war, or focused on the late period. I tried to be balanced, but didn't know the effects of strat bombing would so dramatically reduce supply generation so quickly. I think I'm making about 480,000 a month now though. I wonder what would happen if I turned EVERYTHING off for a month. Would I see a nice buffer from that?

I may try it. Just run AA and NF. Of course a lot of units are taking supply as well to build. There will still be expenses I can't control, but it would be interesting to see how much would build up.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 2436
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 1:13:15 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Yup, I'm including HI, LI and refineries for the supply production figures. So, if you don't have enough oil to keep the refineries operating, your supply goes down even more. Scary.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2437
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 1:20:39 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Maybe Pax, but after the LI start going you are getting that extra production of supply as well, and maybe we don't need some of these frames as early as we get them anyway. The Tojo comes whether you add R n D or not in Autumn 42. The Frank has a factory partially repaired that will push it forward a bit, and you will want to add at least another if not two more. There are a lot of planes we push forward that we don't probably HAVE to have so early.

The ones I'd want are the Frank, the Judy, the Jack, the Sam and the Grace. At 3 x 30 for each, that's not so much. I'd also want a bit of NF production to start early on both IJA and IJN lines. The rest of the planes I'm finding interesting, but not necessary. The Jill comes very quickly, the Helen does as well. The Frances is a good plane to add into the mix, but it doesn't have to come much earlier. Maybe a few months. The A6M line is a dead end and once you get to the A6M5 the rest are really not absolutely necessary, and really don't need extra R n D spending.

R n D is really fun to do but really not that critical to fighting hard in defense.

Most Allied players won't start an offensive until late 42 or early 43. If you have the Jill and Judy by then, at least the A5M3a and the Tojo, you're probably fine. It's a late war focus, and the early going is more about good positioning and pilot quality anyway.

Understand Erik, either create a spreadsheet to look at what you will be able to build or start an AI game to see what you get. You'll have to be building Ida, Sonia, Nate, etc. for many months. You don't have the supply to get everything moved to Oscar/Sally/Zero that you always want to. As I said, if you are fine with fighting Nates for +6 months, you can build up your LI and you will get 1000/day more. It is some, but to me it isn't enough to compensate for all the pain to get there. The total additional amount you get is so small you could either get it in game easier, or simply NOT expand/build a few ac factories mid-game and achieve the same thing.

Sorry, there is no analysis to support building LI. Scrutinized the numbers every which way. Doesn't mean you can't do it, of course you can. But, you can't claim it is more efficient. No analytical support for it. Your shortage of supply end game is a result of supply expenditure decisions mid game. The ROI on LI, due to the time to build and the brevity of time that you get the benefit, is just too low.

As stated, I know that I will not be able to tolerate the impact of that 1M loss of supply in '42. I am not willing to fight with Nates or Ida's one day more than I absolutely have to. It costs me too many pilots and extends my conquest timelines which will cost me MORE supply than I can net with LI. That's just me.

I know that you and Joseph are enamored with the idea, so go for it. One of you two absolutely needs to prosecute this idea in a game to find out for yourselves. You've been kicking it out there for over two years and jump on it as a saving strategy every chance you get. Do it. Do an AAR so we can have some fun with it. Good Luck!

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 10/31/2013 1:25:49 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2438
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 1:42:34 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Oh, and to the point here, go back into this game and tally up all of your factory builds and repairs. Get a total. Then tell MikeS. He'll faint. It will be more than double what he or I build.

The Mike Solli school of economic states that you don't expand a factory until the last second. You rarely have idle ac factories because you have no real excess. And certainly, you never shut down +200 factories due to ac inventory (I recall a recent AAR and the player had >800 ac factories idled due to ac pools. By Mike S economics that player had spent at least 880K supply that he shouldn't have. I'm ignoring the engine factory overbuild here, so these are very conservative numbers).

In my games I rarely ever have either idle ac or engine factories, they are alway producing full tilt and I never have more than 100 planes in the pool of any ac that I am currently building. I rarely have more than 20. The only time I have more than 20 are the KB ac that I have to stock a bit more so when they come to port I can replace losses subsequent to combat.

In other words, my ac scheme looks a lot more like reality than most players. Example, once I get the Tojo it means I have hit equalibrium with IJA Fighters. I always have the last 3 generations in service. Tojo is my front line fighter, Oscar my 2nd line, and then Nate is my rear area CAP and training reserve. When Frank comes along, Nate will pretty much leave the board replaced by Oscar and the Tojos slowly replace the Oscars. I generally build enough factories to cover losses and to convert 1 or sometimes 2 groups per month. That's it. A much slower pace than most players and closer to historical (although even then I am building a bit more than historical).

Most other players as evidenced by their AAR's, once they have Tojo they build +200 factories (I saw one AAR and the player had almost 500 Tojo factories!) with the plan to upgrade their entire air force in 3 months. They do the same with Frank .... etc. So, just in IJA fighter factories that player spent over 1.5M supply (3 gens of fighters at 500K each). Anyway, long story short, when I was done analyzing the players build he had spent +4M supply on ac factories more than I would ever contemplate.

My point here is the reason players run out of supply is not the game, but player decisions. And looking for solutions to that is natural. But the numbers do not lie, and the devs did this intentionally, you can't get there with LI. You just need to prove this to yourself is all. Start a game and do it!

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 10/31/2013 1:57:41 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2439
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 2:39:27 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		After looking at some more numbers, I have to agree with Pax. LI is not the answer. I just checked the numbers from my game. I keep track of a lot of info daily and keep it forever so I know that on 25 Jan 42 of my game, I had 2,541,316 supply available, about 500k below what I started the game with. If I remove 1.1 million supply from that, I'd have only 1.4 million supply remaining. I wouldn't get that 1.1 million back until Jan 45. That 2.5 million hovers around there until May 42 before it begins to increase. I'm only up to ~3-3.1 million in Nov 42. That's too big a chunk to live without for 2 critical years of war. And, that 2.5 million is across the board, not only in the Home Islands. I fear that if you pull 1.1 million out of the Home Islands, the economy would collapse.

I also agree with Pax's comments on airframe/engine factories. I'm building more than I ever have and it's nowhere near what most have. I have only a couple models with near or at 100 in the pool. Most are at 20 or less. I learned my lesson in my first WitP game when I upgraded the A6M2 and ended up with 800+ in the pool. That's 13k HI chucked out the window. More than half never flew. I won't do that again.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2440
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 3:57:35 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		16 - 17 January 1945
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SUBS: More sub laid mines are going to Luzon. We'll see if they can make a difference.

STRAT BOMBING: A big set of raids hit both Osaka and Manila. The strike at Osaka was large and knocked down a bunch of NF, almost 30 on the night. We did manage to get to at least 5-7 of the bombers and damage a bunch more. More importantly, there were only a few hits and virtually no damage to the facilities. Little victories!

The Manila raid got a few more fires going, and we hit about 5-6 bombers there. So this meets the 10 a week goal to keep to the amount in production.

Again, only a day later, B-29-1 hit Manila. This time another 4-5 are shot down and nailed by flak (2 listed to flak). They keep a few fires burning, but I really have to applaud this use of the B-29. It's so much better than the first few strikes which did so much damage at Tokyo.

RECON: Still Tokyo.

CHINA/INDOCHINA: Whew. The 4th Division is nearly out of Saigon. The 48th shot past the new rail blockade running strat on the road along the sea near Vinh!! I love how fast those guys got out of the train and loaded onto trucks to make it past!

So that's two of the three Bangkok divisions out of the trap. It was costly, but still could be worth it. A lot of experience in those units. The 90th will wait for the 4th to finish lifting out. It'll then attempt an escape of it's own. Details to come.

LUZON: A big attack on the ground came at Manila. While we took more losses the disablements are high for the Allies. No forts lowered! That is the big plus. So back to recovering. A few more units still covering ground to get there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR January 16, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Air attack on Osaka/Kyoto , at 109,59

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 68 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 38
Ki-46-III KAI Dinah x 25

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 37

Japanese aircraft losses
J1N1-Sa Irving: 2 destroyed
Ki-46-III KAI Dinah: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 14 damaged

Manpower hits 3
Fires 930

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 9000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 25 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 14

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
J1N1-Sa Irving: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 7 damaged

Manpower hits 1
Fires 579

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 12000 feet
City Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 25 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 9

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 3 damaged
B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed by flak

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 12000 feet
City Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
S-902 Hikotai with J1N1-Sa Irving (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 2 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes

Some CAP have air radar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 16 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 7

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
J1N1-Sa Irving: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 12000 feet
City Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
S-902 Hikotai with J1N1-Sa Irving (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead

Some CAP have air radar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 55,59 (near Tavoy)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 56464 troops, 835 guns, 1641 vehicles, Assault Value = 161

Defending force 50785 troops, 698 guns, 414 vehicles, Assault Value = 1411

Japanese adjusted assault: 0

Allied adjusted defense: 2284

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
4708 casualties reported
Squads: 92 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 299 destroyed, 214 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 62 (57 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 39 (12 destroyed, 27 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
51 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 126086 troops, 2453 guns, 5293 vehicles, Assault Value = 5038

Defending force 122229 troops, 1430 guns, 1586 vehicles, Assault Value = 3291

Allied adjusted assault: 1635

Japanese adjusted defense: 18457

Allied assault odds: 1 to 11 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
6087 casualties reported
Squads: 170 destroyed, 168 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 147 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 135 disabled
Guns lost 222 (23 destroyed, 199 disabled)
Vehicles lost 188 (43 destroyed, 145 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
5724 casualties reported
Squads: 42 destroyed, 263 disabled
Non Combat: 61 destroyed, 238 disabled
Engineers: 21 destroyed, 109 disabled
Guns lost 154 (18 destroyed, 136 disabled)
Vehicles lost 174 (27 destroyed, 147 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Akutan Island (171,49)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1241 troops, 12 guns, 16 vehicles, Assault Value = 77

Defending force 718 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 25

Allied adjusted assault: 12

Japanese adjusted defense: 79

Allied assault odds: 1 to 6 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), leaders(-)
Attacker: leaders(-)

Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
141 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled

Assaulting units:
Rocky Mountain Rger Battalion

Defending units:
53rd Nav Gd /2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR January 17, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 25 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 9

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
J1N1-Sa Irving: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 12000 feet
City Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 6

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
J1N1-Sa Irving: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 12000 feet
City Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 10 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 2 damaged
B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed by flak

Manpower hits 4
Fires 7365

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 12000 feet
City Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 55,59 (near Tavoy)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 52101 troops, 760 guns, 1601 vehicles, Assault Value = 138

Defending force 50742 troops, 698 guns, 414 vehicles, Assault Value = 1403

Japanese adjusted assault: 3

Allied adjusted defense: 3325

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1108

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
836 casualties reported
Squads: 98 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 198 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 17 (15 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 115 (7 destroyed, 108 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
126 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6419 troops, 609 guns, 421 vehicles, Assault Value = 4393

Defending force 123806 troops, 1455 guns, 1550 vehicles, Assault Value = 3147

Japanese ground losses:
121 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 21 (6 destroyed, 15 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinforcements:

39th Field AA Battalion arrives at Tokyo
ML G-438 arrives at Osaka/Kyoto

Losses:

Ships Sunk:

Previous report of sinking of SS Dragonet incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is it now. This is the war.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 10/31/2013 4:26:35 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2441
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 5:32:14 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

This is it now. This is the war.


I find that on Youtube by accident. It is a propaganda movie but historically it is priceless. I don`t know if it is original video cut, music is for sure modern but it it help imagine how Your game looks right now. I like those closeups on Japanese fighters.
Also for sure it is passable to recognize what crew was flying that B-29 and what hapen to them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ged0wsMJ12k

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2442
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 6:45:28 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		18 - 19 January 1945
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STRAT BOMBING: The B-29s take the day off, thankfully. I need to get some new NF built and into these groups.

RECON: Still Tokyo.

CHINA/INDOCHINA: A few ships escaped to Cam Ran from the marauding blockade. I set them to disband but the valuable APs and AKs did not whereas the xAKL did. A strike comes in and our CAP is overwhelmed. Several more AP and AK lost, but a few make it until tomorrow.

I'm slowly lowering the number of fighters at Saigon.

Now units are flooding through China to Canton and Hong Kong, inhabiting bases long left with a bare bones garrison, and setting up roadblocks on the road into China. It's kind of fun, but again, short lived fun. The 12k AV of late war Allied stuff on the way will not be fun.

LUZON: An interesting DA at Manila. It appears that the tanks attacked alone. Almost 400 disabled and 70 destroyed. I guess a portion might be mechanized support as well, but either way this a lot of squads lost, and even support lost will hurt the repair and revitalization of these units. Forts remained at 5 which is the best news of the day. Our small tank division is slowly crumpling, but the big exp 75+ 2nd Tank Div. is doing incredibly well, with only a few disablements. Surprising.

A bunch of YMS sacrificially clear mines in the face of CD guns at Bataan. Smart. The Allies have a zillion of these. I have few mines. Easy decision. Jocke has been playing this really well of late and putting pressure on in a number of ways. In 45 there is no solving of problems as the Japanese side, there is only taking a bit of the Allied side down as you go. Not an enviable position, but it's what we sign up for, and there is a sick pleasure in it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR January 18, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TF 149 encounters mine field at Bataan (78,77) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

29 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
YMS-288, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
YMS-395, Shell hits 6, heavy damage
YMS-394, Shell hits 3, on fire
YMS-393, Shell hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
YMS-387, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
YMS-84, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
YMS-220, Shell hits 2
YMS-216
YMS-128
YMS-127

15th Base Force firing at YMS-288
15th Base Force firing at YMS-395

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cam Ranh Bay at 64,72

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 14
Ki-102a Randy x 8

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 214
F6F-5 Hellcat x 165
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
AK Yamabiko Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AK Asakasan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AK Yamagiri Maru
AK Yamakaze Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x SB2C-3 Helldiver releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cam Ranh Bay at 64,72

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 44 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 5
Ki-102a Randy x 6

Allied aircraft
TBM-1C Avenger x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
TBM-1C Avenger: 8 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAP Brazil Maru
xAP Kamakura Maru
AK Yamabiko Maru, heavy fires

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x TBM-1C Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cam Ranh Bay at 64,72

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 63 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 3
Ki-102a Randy x 2

Allied aircraft
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 14
TBM-3 Avenger x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 1 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
xAP Brazil Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AK Yamabiko Maru, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Yamakaze Maru, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x TBM-3 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Tandjoengselor (68,92)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 5121 troops, 135 guns, 101 vehicles, Assault Value = 196

Defending force 3393 troops, 48 guns, 10 vehicles, Assault Value = 75

Allied adjusted assault: 42

Japanese adjusted defense: 34

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
302 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 22 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
133 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
147th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
112th Cavalry Regiment
131st Field Artillery Battalion
109th Tank Attack Regiment

Defending units:
455th Ind.Infantry Battalion
55th Naval Guard Unit
35th Fld AA Gun Co
209th JAAF AF Bn
134th JAAF AF Bn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR January 19, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TF 88 encounters mine field at Bataan (78,77) - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

41 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
YMS-216, Shell hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
YMS-128, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
YMS-127, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage

15th Base Force firing at YMS-127
31 mines cleared

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 55,59 (near Tavoy)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 48526 troops, 681 guns, 1551 vehicles, Assault Value = 140

Defending force 38194 troops, 329 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1243

Japanese adjusted assault: 1

Allied adjusted defense: 4186

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 4186

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1537 casualties reported
Squads: 164 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 429 disabled
Engineers: 15 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 51 (49 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
91 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 24168 troops, 680 guns, 3147 vehicles, Assault Value = 4529

Defending force 122700 troops, 1423 guns, 1550 vehicles, Assault Value = 3204

Allied adjusted assault: 626

Japanese adjusted defense: 16849

Allied assault odds: 1 to 26 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2573 casualties reported
Squads: 21 destroyed, 175 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 53 disabled
Engineers: 36 destroyed, 32 disabled
Guns lost 53 (14 destroyed, 39 disabled)
Vehicles lost 82 (29 destroyed, 53 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 181 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 81 (27 destroyed, 54 disabled)
Vehicles lost 469 (70 destroyed, 399 disabled)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinforcements:

Hosho-1 arrives at Tokyo
115th AA Regiment arrives at Tokyo
DD Tachibana arrives at Kobe
E No.102 arrives at Tokyo
MTB G-451 arrives at Kobe
Yokosuka 8th SNLF arrives at Yokohama/Yokosuka
69th Field AA Battalion arrives at Tokyo

Losses:AK Yamabiko Maru
AK Asakasan Maru
xAP Brazil Maru
AK Yamabiko Maru


Ships Sunk:

Previous report of sinking of SS Telemachus incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Losses show that our CAP didn't put the hurt on as much as I would have hoped.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/1/2013 6:17:16 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 2443
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 10/31/2013 7:12:34 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		If you want a guinea pig to test out our theories Erik I'm willing to play Japan to find out. You did mention you wanted to try an Allied game, so if you are interested just let me know. Just be aware my economy may have already imploded by 44.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2444
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 2:34:55 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

If you want a guinea pig to test out our theories Erik I'm willing to play Japan to find out. You did mention you wanted to try an Allied game, so if you are interested just let me know. Just be aware my economy may have already imploded by 44.

I would be happy to watch and kibbitz!!



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 2445
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 10:59:05 AM   
obvert


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

Over the course of my life I've thought communication was one of my strengths. This came from a position of having started in my youth as a shy, insecure boy who was always on the outside of things, listening. I got tired of just listening after a while, and made some very embarrassing and bold forays into attempts to communicate what I wanted most (girls). As I gained confidence and tackled my fears of communicating in the most difficult and tempestuous situations (with girls) the evolution toward effective communication continued.

One of the joys of this game has been the relationship developed with my opponents, the other members of the forum, and how this transforms the game from a solitary activity to one of mutual collaboration and community. This is something I haven't had in gaming since being a member of the Wilson HS chess team that started a hodgepodge bunch of geeky boys and eventually, through mutual support and friendship, went on to win the National HS Chess Championships in my senior year, 1989. I'm very proud of that group of boys and some of us are still in touch.

Lately communication has been more difficult in this game. In the beginning, when the Japanese were doing fairly well, and when Jocke had some serious difficulties with the game itself and it's connection to the plausibility of outcomes, I made concessions, offered compromises, and we worked through the issues to keep the game going and have a mutually respectful and positive experience. Some of the concessions I made were enormous, such as halting my main strategic focus for the early game in China, (conceding thousands of VPs and the security, extra economic output and overall strategic position of conquering the whole area), but Jocke also worked to mitigate some things he thought the game didn't model well that had potential to affect the Japanese side more than the Allies. One of those was LR CAP.

I've read through the emails we sent at the time to try to figure out what our actual agreement was concerning LR CAP. It seems that during the upgrade to the betas, (which we temporarily reversed at Jocke's insistence that he needed the coordination offered by the official patch to continue his offensive), we also discussed the use of LR CAP. We decided not to use LR CAP to support bombing runs due to it's continual reset to altitude and the resulting continuous dive, and also the ability of LR CAP to show up in every package throughout a long string of running throughout the turn in one location. We felt mutually that these things didn't work well in game.

Just yesterday Jocke sent a note with the most recent turn file.

Anyway, turn is up. Its a big, big one and I will both pace, make sacrifices to the gods and eat my nails. So I would love the CR/Replay as soon as its ready. :)

There might be a bit of controversiality in this one with LRCAP. But I have done what I can to minimize leakage and LRCAP interference but LRCAP often ignore both targets and range as you know. But hopefully it won´t change anything. I just wanted to make you aware that I am aware of the problems and I have done everything possible to avoid it.

I already regret this turn!

The controversial part got me wondering and as I watched the replay I understood why. But this wasn't about the turn results. It was about the communication. By stating this would be potentially 'controversial' Jocke let me know he'd made a choice to potentially go against our previous thinking on this, but decided to do it anyway without checking with me first. I had thought this would be the easiest most respectful route, and I let him know that, making sure to also say this was about our interaction and understandings, not the turn results.

The principle is much more critical than the result. I'm fine with the result.

That's why I wanted to hear your reasoning before the justifications involving what happened after. You can't avoid LR CAP interference in such a small area, but if you thought you could and proved it through tests it would be really easy to send me a note to ask whether we should lessen or change this understanding.

Your last email is exactly what I'm talking about. You said this turn could be controversial, so you knew there was potential for LR CAP to do what it has always done in a bombing run. Just ask me first when you know it has a potential to be riding a line. I do want the same as what I wrote then, and that is why I'm bringing this up.

I'm not upset, and I do respect you, i think you're trying to do things right, but you're a bit myopic in the way you do it. The communication is the part that's missing. It won't change anything as I don't know where you'd use this, how, and if I did I couldn't stop it anyway! ;)

E

Somehow, from this point, the discussion devolved into Jocke thinking I was calling him a cheater and me trying to turn it back around to simply talking about this stuff before deciding on doing something that 'might be controversial' but alas to no avail.

I'm not writing an essay to prove my self to be in the right. I simply really enjoy this community, Ive really enjoyed most of the interactions with my opponents, and I'd like this to heal and continue somehow, but I'm at a bit of a loss now. My ability to communicate has obviously failed, and I hold myself at least partially responsible for that.

But what can I do now? How can we resolve this issue? I think both of us might need some outside assistance to bring us together, so guys, I'm humbly asking for that.







< Message edited by obvert -- 11/1/2013 11:31:28 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2446
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 11:03:01 AM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		I recommend trying to get to the "root cause." You guys might be talking about two different issues (since the "controversial" comment could mean anything - since a lot happened in a very small area).

Try not talking past each other and talking to each other....it is only a game.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2447
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 11:10:11 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I recommend trying to get to the "root cause." You guys might be talking about two different issues (since the "controversial" comment could mean anything - since a lot happened in a very small area).

Try not talking past each other and talking to each other....it is only a game.


Thanks Paullus. I've been trying to do just that, to stick to the particulars of decision making that led to the settings and to simply ask that instead of making a unilateral decision about something controversial, to ask first. In this case, the might be controversial part finished by saying 'with LR CAP.' That seems pretty clearly about the LR CAP and bombing.

I'm much more concerned right now about where this has gone. as you can see above I tried in the best way I knew how to simply ask that we talk about things before doing something we think might ruffle feathers. Then it all went haywire. I could attach the rest of the communication, but the last one I received is pretty long and not so pretty to read. Made me feel pretty s*** to be honest. Hence the cry for help.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 2448
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 11:42:33 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		(Percieved) LRCAP over bases on which strikes occur are unavoidable over the whole game. My personal take is that LRCAP as strike support is not overpowered, but each to his own. I would not agree to any houserule limiting LRCAP in such situations as it would pose more problems than it solves. For example transport plane interdiction and air attacks on the same base would be mutually exclusive.

That said I do believe that the situation between you and JockMeister on a personal level might deteriorate so easily because you both run much frequented AARs where Japan is doing better than average for scen 2, are exposed to hundreds of different opinions offered by people who only know part of a situation, and are both (no offense) relatively inexperienced wrt the finer aspects of how the game engine handles certain situations - now a bit less than at the start, but still. So you have difficulties to come to an agreement on whether your own personal conclusions and the - often contradicting - advice you get in both AARs should lead to specific HRs or other agreements with the opponent, and whether there are any intentional or unintentional violations of those agreements, and what caused them, which is fuelled by any public discussion. You both expose your personal conflict to the community which only results in more conflicting opinions and misunderstandings.

My advice for your game enjoyment would be to lower both your profile, play the game, if you got a conflict solve it between the two of you, and if there are questions where external advice could help, open up a thread together for open discussion. And keep the AARs professional minimize personal or emotional content and focus on facts of the conflict.

WitP AE is most fun if you empathize with, and respect and trust your opponent, and enjoy the journey together. My opponents have long developed into some of my best friends, I could never imagine having conflicts like that, even less in public. Bitching around is for below par relationships. A campaign is too long and too much of an investment to ruin it by unneccesary animosities.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2449
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 11:52:55 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline 		Jocke, Obvert.

I read both sides so I am not going to comment on what is happening in the game.

However I will comment on the fact that you need to get a sense of proportion and perhaps a sense that - after all - one of you is not using their native language.

There are times - and we have had them before - when things happen because things happen’. Its not intentional.

For the last four moves in one of my games I’ve had 4Es do night bombing despite AFAIK none of them having orders to do so.

Reading what has happened on both AARs I’d say its just one of those things and you two are letting it become a major issue.

My long term opponents and I are good friends, we often chat about other issues in life, but have found its best to keep email content about things in the game to a minimum.

Can I humbly suggest that you’d both be better off saying less about what you are doing and letting the moves speak for themselves?

Maybe the root of this is the use of the word ‘controversial’ when another word would be ‘unorthodox’ or just plain ‘different’.

Just my - hopefully helpful - advice.

Roger

posted to both AARs.


_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2450
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 11:55:40 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Well said LoBaron. Couldn't agree more. One of my 2 current opponents (apbarog) is a very seasoned Japanese campaigner. He's said from the start it's about the journey and enjoyment along the way. Of course there's results and battles that don't go your way and it's EASY to focus on the minutiae of the game and to overly analyse aspects that can seem unfair.

I do think a certain level of HR's are needed to prevent some, obvious, gamey moves which in turn prevent flare ups occurring and ensure the best chance of game enjoyment but above and beyond I believe it's about the challenge, achieving the most with what you have in a fair way and at the same time getting to know and enjoy playing your opponent.

You're both in a unique position, being so far, into the game and I really hope you can take a step back and to enjoy the game through to the end.....

< Message edited by Speedy -- 11/1/2013 11:57:16 AM >

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 2451
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 12:13:02 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

(Percieved) LRCAP over bases on which strikes occur are unavoidable over the whole game. My personal take is that LRCAP as strike support is not overpowered, but each to his own. I would not agree to any houserule limiting LRCAP in such situations as it would pose more problems than it solves. For example transport plane interdiction and air attacks on the same base would be mutually exclusive.

That said I do believe that the situation between you and JockMeister on a personal level might deteriorate so easily because you both run much frequented AARs where Japan is doing better than average for scen 2, are exposed to hundreds of different opinions offered by people who only know part of a situation, and are both (no offense) relatively inexperienced wrt the finer aspects of how the game engine handles certain situations - now a bit less than at the start, but still. So you have difficulties to come to an agreement on whether your own personal conclusions and the - often contradicting - advice you get in both AARs should lead to specific HRs or other agreements with the opponent, and whether there are any intentional or unintentional violations of those agreements, and what caused them, which is fuelled by any public discussion. You both expose your personal conflict to the community which only results in more conflicting opinions and misunderstandings.

My advice for your game enjoyment would be to lower both your profile, play the game, if you got a conflict solve it between the two of you, and if there are questions where external advice could help, open up a thread together for open discussion. And keep the AARs professional minimize personal or emotional content and focus on facts of the conflict.

WitP AE is most fun if you empathize with, and respect and trust your opponent, and enjoy the journey together. My opponents have long developed into some of my best friends, I could never imagine having conflicts like that, even less in public. Bitching around is for below par relationships. A campaign is too long and too much of an investment to ruin it by unneccesary animosities.


Thanks LoBaron.

Having two AARs certainly feeds into this. I think it's inevitable to let it come in to get support, and that yes it's difficult, but ultimately fulfilling to have a community that can give support. i look at the comments here and feel really good that people at least care to say something, realizing what a rare thing it is to push a game to this point.

(By the way, this is a SCEN 1 game).

I didn't comment on this earlier as I didn't want anything heated or emotional to come into it. I want the viewpoint to offer balance, work toward understanding and through exposing some of the communication, make sure it moves toward a solution. Writing it down actually helped me understand it better, and whether it's smart of not, personally I feel it's good to get the stuff out in the open where it doesn't have to fester. Our back and forth hasn't been working, so it was time to try something else.

Your last point, bolded, is exactly what I'm trying for. Our lack of understanding the game earlier has led to some things we have now that probably don't work well at this point, I agree. My only point in all of this is we should talk about that.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 2452
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 12:25:13 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Jocke, Obvert.

I read both sides so I am not going to comment on what is happening in the game.

However I will comment on the fact that you need to get a sense of proportion and perhaps a sense that - after all - one of you is not using their native language.

There are times - and we have had them before - when things happen because things happen’. Its not intentional.

For the last four moves in one of my games I’ve had 4Es do night bombing despite AFAIK none of them having orders to do so.

Reading what has happened on both AARs I’d say its just one of those things and you two are letting it become a major issue.

My long term opponents and I are good friends, we often chat about other issues in life, but have found its best to keep email content about things in the game to a minimum.

Can I humbly suggest that you’d both be better off saying less about what you are doing and letting the moves speak for themselves?

Maybe the root of this is the use of the word ‘controversial’ when another word would be ‘unorthodox’ or just plain ‘different’.

Just my - hopefully helpful - advice.

Roger

posted to both AARs.



Exactly. It was the email that used the word controversial that I was responding to. While it's not his first language, Jocke is one of the most articulate people I've communicated with fr whom English isn't a first language. I don't think that's the issue.

We've tried saying less, but these kinds of comments inevitably accompany a big event in game from his side. I don't mind, but it can lead to these issues.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 2453
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 12:41:34 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline 		I follow Jockes more than yours as an AFB (fair play for doing so well with Scen 1 btw)

Are there any HRs that would make such a massive difference now? and if there are not, maybe just suggest to him that to play with all HR's suspended and see how it works out.

Just an idea

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2454
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 1:20:04 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I follow Jockes more than yours as an AFB (fair play for doing so well with Scen 1 btw)

Are there any HRs that would make such a massive difference now? and if there are not, maybe just suggest to him that to play with all HR's suspended and see how it works out.

Just an idea


Well, he just a few weeks ago asked for the HR for max altitude at 32k altitude, and I agreed to that eventually. That one seems to make sense to us both.

Here are the rest. I'm not at all averse to abandoning a bunch of these. I myself asked to have the restriction on strategic night bombing taken away so that the Allies could fully use their radar guided and advanced bombing weapons, the B-29 mainly, so that is no longer in effect.

HRs

No Allied 4E naval bombing below 10,000ft (except for NAVY 4Es) REMOVABLE (Not ever been attempted and it was just included as a stander that most people had)

Max sweep and CAP are at second best maneuver band. REMOVED Now max 32k.

PPs to be paid to change a restricted unit to an unrestricted command before marching accross a border. VALID (A removal would greatly benefit the Japanese side too much).

Thai units can move into the Burma and Malaya IRRELEVANT

no Strategic bombing in China by either side for the entire war. REMOVED

No Allied Air or naval units in Russia are allowed, even if Russia is activated. VALID (but irrelevant as I see it now, as most of Manchuria will be in Allied hands soon after activation, and that's just as good as Russia, maybe better).

Allies can only give orders to existing TFs on turn 1. Force Z may be re-directed. IRRELEVANT

We also added that Chineseunits can be given orders on the first turn. IRRELEVANT

One CV portstrike on turn 1 IRRELEVANT

No invasions or paradrops on hexes that doesn´t contain a dot or base. REMOVABLE

Our only real informal agreements, made during game were to limit LR CAP to sweeps rather than trying to use it to support bombing and to limit night bombing to strategic targets.


< Message edited by obvert -- 11/1/2013 1:22:20 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 2455
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 1:32:42 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Well said LoBaron. Couldn't agree more. One of my 2 current opponents (apbarog) is a very seasoned Japanese campaigner. He's said from the start it's about the journey and enjoyment along the way. Of course there's results and battles that don't go your way and it's EASY to focus on the minutiae of the game and to overly analyse aspects that can seem unfair.

I do think a certain level of HR's are needed to prevent some, obvious, gamey moves which in turn prevent flare ups occurring and ensure the best chance of game enjoyment but above and beyond I believe it's about the challenge, achieving the most with what you have in a fair way and at the same time getting to know and enjoy playing your opponent.

You're both in a unique position, being so far, into the game and I really hope you can take a step back and to enjoy the game through to the end.....


Just getting back to this. Thanks for the comments.

This is entirely what I believe in. Most of the time this stuff just goes right over me and i don't care to bother with details. It is a long game though and to address the emailed comments, not the turn, were the intent of my response. I wasn't and not now asking for a replay, redo, reset or reconsideration of anything. Just that I be involved in decision making about the stuff we've made agreements about for the game.

I've sent what I hope to be a positive note. All I really am looking for is for him to say, "yeah, next time I'll check with you when I feel something I'm doing might get close to pushing boundaries of what we've talked about."

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 2456
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 1:43:45 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline 		The way I see it, LRCAP is a defensive mission. It should not be used for any offensive purpose. Using it to cover ground troops, ships or an airbase? Fine. Using it as a means to conduct offensive operations by escorting bombers or supporting sweeps? I don't think so.

In light of the resolution of the China issue (which was exceptionally lenient, far more than I'd be willing to be), there's a good basis for some quid pro quo.


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2457
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 4:52:40 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The way I see it, LRCAP is a defensive mission. It should not be used for any offensive purpose. Using it to cover ground troops, ships or an airbase? Fine. Using it as a means to conduct offensive operations by escorting bombers or supporting sweeps? I don't think so.

In light of the resolution of the China issue (which was exceptionally lenient, far more than I'd be willing to be), there's a good basis for some quid pro quo.



LRCAP is important offensively for intercepting transport planes. As far as LRCAP supporting bombers, I just have trouble believing that it's terribly effective at that (see LoBaron's comments). It's just one game mechanism to get fighter planes in a particular area, and it has costs associated with it. Frankly, I hardly bother with (just here and there).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 2458
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 6:52:40 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As far as LRCAP supporting bombers, I just have trouble believing that it's terribly effective at that (see LoBaron's comments). It's just one game mechanism to get fighter planes in a particular area, and it has costs associated with it. Frankly, I hardly bother with (just here and there).


I've been on the receiving end of it and it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I believe the issue is the 'dive' and not the LRCAP itself. If bombers are at 10k, how effective is a CAP against the bombers if set to 30k? Lower the CAP to say 15k to get to the bombers and the enemy sets LRCAP at 20k, what happens? The CAP is bounced for as long as the LRCAP can interdict. That is the issue with LRCAP set to coincide with bombing missions. It provides an escort capability but in the form of a much more effective sweep and often getting the bounce.

However, I now believe the solution is set a high CAP to deal with the LRCAP, or even set high altitude LRCAP over your own defensive CAP to deal with it. LRCAP is wonky anyway, often engaging beyond set ranges and or diverted away from player input to protect a particular base or what not. Essentially there is little to no control over what LRCAP actually does during a turn. When bases are close together there is any combination of possibilities in how the AI will perform LRCAP missions and this kind of HR is no longer functional.

I don't believe Erik's issues are with the results. It's clear there was an understanding about LRCAP discussed when the game started. Jocke knowingly created a situation where it could become a problem and rather than giving Erik a heads up about it and discussing possible changes to, or dropping the LRCAP issue altogether, instead chose to risk a discussion or a wtf confrontation over this move after the fact. I think if it was brought up prior to finalizing the orders for this turn, neither Erik or Jocke would now be risking a falling out.

We all know at this stage of the game when forces are in close contact with one another LRCAP is needed, but also not very controllable. I'd suggest you both discuss doing away with this house rule at this stage of the game. Try to counter the use of escort LRCAP with LRCAP of your own to counter the height advantage. Jocke and I have the same gentlemen's agreement, or HR if you will, and I'll most likely suggest we eliminate it now from our game.

I attach no blame to either player here. The agreement about LRCAP was an effort to improve the feel of air combat for you both. I think at this point in the game it's now unworkable under current circumstances and for the sake of your game and relationship it's time to drop this particular HR.

No offence intended to you Erik or Jocke, and if I have caused any I apologize in advance. I don't follow Jocke's AAR so can't post the same comment there.


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2459
RE: Wild Sheep Chase - 11/1/2013 7:04:53 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The way I see it, LRCAP is a defensive mission. It should not be used for any offensive purpose. Using it to cover ground troops, ships or an airbase? Fine. Using it as a means to conduct offensive operations by escorting bombers or supporting sweeps? I don't think so.

In light of the resolution of the China issue (which was exceptionally lenient, far more than I'd be willing to be), there's a good basis for some quid pro quo.



LRCAP is important offensively for intercepting transport planes. As far as LRCAP supporting bombers, I just have trouble believing that it's terribly effective at that (see LoBaron's comments). It's just one game mechanism to get fighter planes in a particular area, and it has costs associated with it. Frankly, I hardly bother with (just here and there).


In this current situation there is no way to avoid it. There are to many things in too close a proximity. I can see that.

But if set to 32k over the bombing base it's certainly not going for transports, it's not aiming to get the dive on fighters, and the problem is that it does do this over and over endlessly. If each package of bombers arriving is meant to represent different phases, areas and sequences of the battle, how can the same LR CAP be in all of them while only small portions of the base CAP sometimes make it in time for the bombers? Yet in the replay that seems to happen in big fur balls. Jocke and I had agreed on this earlier. In limiting it we limited BOTH sides, not just the Allies. I would have loved to use it too.

In hindsight it's probably hard to limit this at all effectively as LoBaron points out, but we were both relatively inexperienced and had started with a joint premise to try to make the game experience as plausible as we could to real-world situations. Maybe that is impossible, and that is the position we have come to.

It takes a long time to get this game even after learning the moves.

EDIT: Joseph beat me to it!

And I might add summed it up better than i could, as well as really hitting the issue on the head too.

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/1/2013 7:07:26 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2460
Page:   <<   < prev  80 81 [82] 83 84   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Wild Sheep Chase Page: <<   < prev  80 81 [82] 83 84   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

3.594