Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Pretty soon you should start looking at your arrival queues for ETO planes and troops after VE Day. You will need vast amounts of troop transport shipping in CONUS to bring them forward. Same with the planes which can't fly across. Ops losses on single-engine at the ranges you're at might not be worth it so you would need transport for them too. But the troops can't walk and it's too late if you think of them on May 1 and you have 1000 needed ships sitting in the PI.

quote:


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)

quote:

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Pretty soon you should start looking at your arrival queues for ETO planes and troops after VE Day. You will need vast amounts of troop transport shipping in CONUS to bring them forward. Same with the planes which can't fly across. Ops losses on single-engine at the ranges you're at might not be worth it so you would need transport for them too. But the troops can't walk and it's too late if you think of them on May 1 and you have 1000 needed ships sitting in the PI.

Good point. Most of the shipping has just dumped stuff of on Luzon. They are heading back within a week or two. Might as well keep them on the WC when they get back. I´m starting to get a good amount of local fuel now and I just dumped 3,5 million supply. With the 2 million supply already in place I should be good to go.

Havn´t looked really at what comes from Europe. I assume its goodie goodie?

quote:

Manilagrad
------------------------
I´m pleased with the results. Actually very pleased.


quote:


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)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

FWIW, I think you're crazy to run anything past Bataan's CD. This move proves you are utterly, irretrievably, air-centric.

Also, the idea of bombarding Clark from the sea is nuts. I've been to Clark, before it was buried under a volcano. It's a LONG way from BB land. I know it's the game, but still . . .

quote:

15th Base Force firing at YMS-127

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

He lost about 4% of his forces here 5% of vehicles .. You lost less than .04% of troops but 15% of your vehicles ..I am not sure how quickly these come back?

Somehow you have to cut these forces off and get them disrupted ...

The real key to this game IMHO) I can see is Southeast Asia and the huge supply problem here and I suspect in China .. PI seems to have plenty of supply ...at least for now ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Can you spare a TF to bombard Bataan on the day before??

Also, shooting at your kami MSW would use supply, get ready for a "gamey" email

To Bullwinkle, Jan 45 was the end of the Bulge, I dont think Ike was sending reinforcement to the Pacific just yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From GJ's thread

Pax, you can have some of my supply if you want to? I have 103 million sitting around not doing much of anything.

Joc, maybe you should be swapping it with QBall for a couple of hundred invulnerable T-Bolts.

GJ's travails are perfect example of different problems in different games, things are rarely the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

To Bullwinkle, Jan 45 was the end of the Bulge, I dont think Ike was sending reinforcement to the Pacific just yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

You both need a team of lawyers. Fifteen each should be sufficient for a start.

quote:

I have asked if we can remove the "escort for escort" agreement. To my knowledge NO other game have a ban on LRCAP for escort?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Or, you could look at the paint job on your planes and see if there's a meatball there . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

I have asked if we can remove the "escort for escort" agreement. To my knowledge NO other game have a ban on LRCAP for escort?

What game mechanic does this compensate for? or is this an attempt to conform to a perception of "real life"?

I like Bullwinke's game .. with no home rules the algorithms no matter how badly written .....are the final arbitrator

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means.

I missed the quote from Bullwinke58 .. so this seems totally out of context ..

However, to keep the conversation going .. I postulate the following:

1. the players mutually agree that a particular game mechanic/algorithm can be exploited and the user behaviors that cause this exploitation are prohibited / constrained.

2. The players mutually or one side has some notion that a certain algorithm does not simulate their particular perception / understanding of history, and changing user behavior will help the game to conform to their worldview. This I might suggest has inherent problems of unintended consequences that might not be immediately apparent.

I might suggest a third problem: The game at one time had an algorithm problem that players commonly understood the problem, but now the behavior has changed in one of Michaels patches. Continuing the home rule causes even more unintended consequences.

quote:

Yeah, Erik felt his fighters took too heavy losses when LRCAP protected the bombers and the bombers itself never took any losses. That was of course in 42 when he was flying Tojos. Now he is flying stuff that shoots down a bomber by just looking at it. I agreed to it then because it seemed to make sense and I had a nice pool of both fighters and bombers. Right now it feels kind of stupid with the BETA and gazillion fragments not being escorted and shot down in droves by his CAP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

This game takes at least 18 months I would estimate and in some cases a lot longer to fully appreciate what seems to be a good change to correct the moment. Therefore The unintended consequences takes years to really understand. If both players do not appreciate the unintended consequences and victory becomes more important than game play .. you get highly emotional highly contentious debates. I would not say these are Crucial Conversations as I am not sure a game qualifies as "high stakes". But, if one is really personally invested in this game over a year or two, then I could see a high stakes component and all the ingredients of a Crucial Conversation.

These types of conflicts are mote likely to result in disruptive behaviors ...

One bad thing in a long game like this is a home rule that leads to an unbalanced situation in itself -- only 2 years down the road ...

quote:

Night Naval bombardment of Clark Field at 79,76

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
H8K2 Emily: 75 damaged
H8K2 Emily: 13 destroyed on ground
N1K2-J George: 57 damaged
N1K2-J George: 14 destroyed on ground
N1K1-J George: 48 damaged
N1K1-J George: 6 destroyed on ground
Ki-84r Frank: 22 damaged
Ki-84r Frank: 4 destroyed on ground
Ki-84a Frank: 15 damaged
Ki-84a Frank: 5 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 26 damaged
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 6 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
BB Missouri
BB Wisconsin
BB New Jersey
BB Iowa

Japanese ground losses:
434 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 32 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 23 (13 destroyed, 10 disabled)
Vehicles lost 14 (6 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Airbase hits 34
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 50
Port hits 8
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Clark Field at 79,76

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84a Frank: 23 damaged
Ki-84a Frank: 3 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 21 damaged
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 4 destroyed on ground
N1K2-J George: 78 damaged
N1K2-J George: 8 destroyed on ground
Ki-84r Frank: 19 damaged
Ki-84r Frank: 3 destroyed on ground
H8K2 Emily: 52 damaged
H8K2 Emily: 6 destroyed on ground
N1K1-J George: 28 damaged
N1K1-J George: 3 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
BB Richelieu
BB Massachusetts
BB Indiana
BB South Dakota

Japanese ground losses:
408 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 22 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 10 (9 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Airbase hits 11
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 27
Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tokyo , at 114,60

Weather in hex: Light rain<--Finally!

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 5

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 3 damaged

Manpower hits 21
Fires 76140

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Or, you could look at the paint job on your planes and see if there's a meatball there . . .

Now you lost me? I don´t know what that means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Sorry. Maybe an American English idiom.

In the era, the Japanese national symbol found on the military flag (the red circle) was called a "meatball." I was saying, are these your planes or his? I get why some people like HRs even if I don't, but this endless, never-ending litigating in the middle of combat . . .

It's your game, as is always said in these cases. We're watching. And it's a very, very interesting game. But the stoppages of play to try to "fix" the unfixable are hard to watch.

That's all.