RE: 1945!

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: 1945!

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: 1945!

Page: << < prev 81 82 [83] 84 85 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 5:15:00 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

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.

Heh, while I might never play a completely HR free game like you have I�m slowly, slowly getting there. I�m at the same point Encircled is right now. PPs for restricted units. Thats the only one I would really want in my next game.

PS. I don�t know idiom either. Had to look it up!

I have in the past volunteer taught English as a Second Language to immigrants. It's hilarious and has made me listen to my language a lot more closely. Every one has idioms. English has thousands. The one that got the most odd looks from my students was "It's raining cats and dogs."

Needless to say in WWII the US had millions of Italian heritaged servicemen in the military. Anything red and round? A meatball of course!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2461

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 5:58:53 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

The one that got the most odd looks from my students was "It's raining cats and dogs."

Hmm that one should be perfectly understandable to those living in Oklahoma this tornado season ..

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2462

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 6:15:39 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

Havn�t gotten the turn back and I�m not sure I will. Honestly don�t know if will send it back even if I do. I�m fed up with the drama. I�m not enjoying the game and even less so after todays email conversation

I am sorry to hear this .. maybe of you both took a couple of days off and then started back up the emotional investment will cool down.

I know my feelings about home rules was shaped in a PBEM contest ... I was getting my butt kicked and then the IJ nonchalantly strolled IJA armor units in the open without air cover and with the full intent of sealing the deal in Burma... I hit them with 4E's smashing these units up horribly ..the problem was not moving units under the Allied air umbrella .. the problem was that the game is borked!

Soon the calls for more rules that favored the IJ's perceived superiority .. [If I do not at least duplicate history . the game is borked!] Game ended soon thereafter ..

I think the air module totally depends on LRCAP interworkings as an abstraction of the Intercept model. How someone can explain this is an exploitation I am not sure

I would suspect many factors are playing into your opponents frustration that might get worse as time goes by. That might be something to discuss before proceeding. That is some CR die roll or Allied victory of some sort might tip the scales decidedly toward the Allies where the IJ will have to absorb the punishment like the Allies do the first 400 turns of this affair ....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2463

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 6:32:00 PM

ny59giants

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

I had to look up my newest game and what HRs I asked for. There are very few for air units. Some are restrictions for what Japanese air units can go on various carriers, having the big Allied 4e bombers going below 10k, and strategic bombing beginning on July 1st '43.

Having LRCAP for just about anything should go, IMO. Both sides just need to develop tactics to combat it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2464

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:03:14 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

The one that got the most odd looks from my students was "It's raining cats and dogs."

Hmm that one should be perfectly understandable to those living in Oklahoma this tornado season ..

Cats, dogs, Fords, Chevys . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 2465

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:04:11 PM

JocMeister

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

I�m not really sure what to make of this. I quite strongly feel I havn�t done anything wrong yet Erik is very upset. Our only agreement have been to try and avoid using LRCAP as intentional bomber escort instead of escort. I�ve done what I can to minimize this. Even went to great lengths to avoid it. But its a absolutely stupid agreement as LRCAP is one of the most unpredictable game mechanics there is. Its constantly failing to show up, straying beyond set target and even going beyond max range. Eriks "solution" to this was basically to tell me to stop using LRCAP/Sweep combos. Thats just silly. I can�t do that.

I did what I could to avoid the LRCAP but since the sweeps didn�t fly until the afternoon Erik CAP was up when the bombers arrived. He is arguing that having the LRCAP there made my losses much, much lighter then they should have been. I don�t know what he wants or is after. He still shot down probably something like 50 4Es and 80-100 P38s. Is that not enough? Thats one month worth losses in just a single day. He knows my pools are empty and that is a catastrophic loss for me. Yet he wants to shoot down more? I don�t get it.

Funny thing is that I still don�t know if it really was LRCAP over Manila. I think it might have been the CV CAP that strayed in over Manila but I don�t know for certain until I see the turn. If I see the turn...

I�ve had enough of these game breaks and interruptions because we "need to discuss" things. I never see this in other AARs besides mine and coinsidently Erik AAR vs Torsten. I don�t want to say too much here because Erik can�t respond. But I�m not going to spend more time on this game unless something drastically changes. In the last email I sent him I gave him the following 3 options to pick from.

-We shut up and play the game.
-We specify CRYSTAL CLEAR ABSOLUTE NO VIOLATIONs kind of HRs and then play the game and shut up about it after that. I would prefer an absolute MINIMUM of such HRs to lessen the risks of further "discussions"
-We drop the game and call it a day.

So I guess the game is on hold for now. Again. For the gaz�llionth time.

I should add a bit of a disclaimer here though that this is obviously my version of events. Eriks version probably sounds a bit differently. I have still not recieved an answer on what "agreement I deliberately broke" despite asking 4 times now.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/31/2013 9:48:24 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 2466

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:19:10 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

He's upset about that? Seriously?

He has been killing your bombers left, right, center, sidewise & 6 ways from Sunday....he really needs to get a grip.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2467

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:22:07 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

Besides the state of the game, perhaps we all could pause a moment here and learn something. I usually call for Lobaron in these cases and sit quietly as the basics are explained to me. I just don't understand what your opponent thinks you did wrong.

I hate discussing the air models, but I will if anyone can clear this up.

Broken down to basics (I hope), I see three ways to get fighters from Own Base to Enemy Target: escort, sweep, or LRCAP.

1. Escort is a precise percentage ordered. All else equal all ordered should fly with bombers. There is no rotation, no "hot 5" planes on the ramp. If you say 30% and the range works, 30% flies, or tries to, weather, fatigue, leadership, etc. permitting.

2. Sweep. Same thing with percents, and the other factors. But, importantly, you can't control AM or PM. Nor can you control where in the phase the attacks execute in each day phase. Sweeps don't try to coordinate with bombers at all.

3. LRCAP. Percent ordered to range and destination ordered, range permitting. Do not coordinate with bombers. Should be present in both AM and PM, conditions permitting. Very high fatigue accumulation rate. Do not act as overt escorts for allied aircraft in same hex. Seek only to destroy enemy aircraft in same, or up to 2, hexes away, max range permitting.

Is that about right, at the base? If it is, he should be HAPPY you "wasted" planes on LRCAP. You could have sent 100% of your fighter inventory on Escort.

What am I missing after playing with 3-5 fighters per turn for over a year now?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2468

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:44:33 PM

Crackaces

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

CRSutton used to have a great saying as a sig line something like those that are losing complain the loudest ... I must admit in my current game I have been fussing to my opponent that India withdrawals continue despite India being in danger of complete overrun

I just keep hammering his armor units that advance to take forward bases so the IJ can rail units in minimal time with 4E's and use my mostly disabled barely intact units to block his supply routes .. it all works out ..

It is a game .. not a simulation ...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2469

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:45:33 PM

JocMeister

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

This is of course an interpretation of what I think Erik is against.

He is arguing that the LRCAP isn�t shackled by the negative modifiers escorts are. And that LRCAP presence in a hex gives protection to all those gazillion fragments the bombers break up into. His main beef seems to be that the LRCAP "teleports" back up to patrol height after every engagement and getting the "dive" on his CAP. Its a valid point but he is disregarding the fact that he still inflicted a massive loss on both my bombers, escorts AND the LRCAP.

My question right now is that he still shot down a months worth of production in on day and he thinks LRCAP is too powerful? I havn�t seen the turn so I�m estimating the losses based on the CR. They WILL be bad.

This is the first attack on Manila. Looks too powerful? He lost 5 planes...

quote:

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

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M3 Jack x 72
J2M5 Jack x 36
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 49
Ki-84a Frank x 43
Ki-84r Frank x 49

Allied aircraft
Liberator B.VI x 50
B-24D1 Liberator x 6
B-24J Liberator x 210
P-38H Lightning x 22
P-38J Lightning x 53
P-38L Lightning x 46
F4U-1A Corsair x 12 <--Possible LRCAP
F4U-1D Corsair x 62 <--Possible LRCAP
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 40

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 3 damaged
J2M5 Jack: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 2 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator B.VI: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged
Liberator B.VI: 1 destroyed by flak
B-24J Liberator: 4 destroyed, 10 damaged
P-38H Lightning: 5 destroyed
P-38J Lightning: 4 destroyed
P-38L Lightning: 6 destroyed
F4U-1D Corsair: 2 destroyed
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 7 damaged

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/31/2013 10:01:05 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2470

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 9:58:31 PM

JocMeister

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

2nd attack...

quote:

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

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M3 Jack x 63
J2M5 Jack x 25
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 39
Ki-84a Frank x 36
Ki-84r Frank x 34

Allied aircraft
Liberator B.VI x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 3
B-24J Liberator x 36
P-38L Lightning x 22
F4U-1A Corsair x 12 <-- Possible LRCAP
F4U-1D Corsair x 14 <-- Possible LRCAP
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 3 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator B.VI: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 3 destroyed, 16 damaged
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 destroyed
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 2 damaged

The situation is just tiresome. Those who have followed this AAR knows that there has been many disruptions during the last 6 months. Aerial mining, "suicide recon" (forgot to cancel the movement on a unit) and many more. Everything has to be discussed all the time. I just want to play the game. I told Erik so after the last "discussion" and we had a good flow of turns without any communication at all going for several weeks. Worked very well. I don�t want to spend my evenings writing emails back and forth. I want to play the damn game without all the drama. Obviously the drama is unavoidable when we "communicate" so why not just cut that out.

Aaargh.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 10/31/2013 10:14:01 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2471

RE: 1945! - 10/31/2013 10:50:50 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I usually call for Lobaron in these cases and sit quietly as the basics are explained to me.

You don�t need to, you hit the nail. Actually you explained it better than I had.

quote:

I just don't understand what your opponent thinks you did wrong.

Me neither.

LRCAP comes with its own set of disadvantages. You are given a series of options and choose a mix of what is appropriate for the situation.

Also, as Jocmeister said, it might be CAP with range set > 0. CAP reaction at range is not easy to predict, and even more difficult to prevent in case squadron range settings are dictated by other factors. CAP reacts to a variety of events.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2472

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 1:33:03 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

This is of course an interpretation of what I think Erik is against.

He is arguing that the LRCAP isn�t shackled by the negative modifiers escorts are. And that LRCAP presence in a hex gives protection to all those gazillion fragments the bombers break up into. His main beef seems to be that the LRCAP "teleports" back up to patrol height after every engagement and getting the "dive" on his CAP. Its a valid point but he is disregarding the fact that he still inflicted a massive loss on both my bombers, escorts AND the LRCAP.

I guess I'm confused still. The air stuff always does that to me.

I looked in my archives for both my games. I don't have very many cases where I had CAP up, there was more than one attack on a base, and some of the CAP survived to meet the second attack. But in every case I found the CAP was at the patrol altitude--"teleported" in Erik's terms--when the second attack began. If the Oscars were assigned to 38,000 feet and my poor P40Es were at 15,000 that was the case at the start of both reports. As has been said many times the attack queue isn't really consecutive. It's reported that way in the animation, but it's not one run, then the next, then the next. Losses carry forward, but it's not as clean as it looks time-wise.

What negative modifiers do escorts get? I truly don't know. Learning opportunity for me. I think that they're tied to their strike package and don't loiter might be what he means, and that's true, but the fatigue accumulation for LRCAP is much higher than for Escort in the other direction. And 100% of the LRCAP percentage isn't there 100% of the time in both day phases. That's a disadvantage. I have always looked at LRCAP as a sometime thing. I'd rather do sweeps and not have them tied to bomber timing, or do pure escort and make the fighters ablative. LRCAP has always seemed the worst of both worlds in offense. In defense LRCAP can make sense, especially when dissimilar sized AFs are in the mix. But I watch the fatigue.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2473

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 2:36:41 AM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

You have got to be kidding me - he murdered you....and he's complaining? What the hell, man....that is ridiculous.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2474

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 2:42:23 AM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

This all boils down to escorts being absolutely useless in the game, regardless of aircraft type and pilot exp. LRCAP is a decent work around imo. Both sides can use it, so he should live with it.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 2475

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 4:15:19 AM

Quixote

Posts: 773
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Not sure whether to wish you good luck in resolving this, or good game after all the drama. It's been fun to follow for us either way, but maybe not so much fun lately for you to litigate. It is supposed to be a game, after all...

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 2476

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 9:04:19 AM

JocMeister

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I guess I'm confused still. The air stuff always does that to me.

I looked in my archives for both my games. I don't have very many cases where I had CAP up, there was more than one attack on a base, and some of the CAP survived to meet the second attack. But in every case I found the CAP was at the patrol altitude--"teleported" in Erik's terms--when the second attack began. If the Oscars were assigned to 38,000 feet and my poor P40Es were at 15,000 that was the case at the start of both reports. As has been said many times the attack queue isn't really consecutive. It's reported that way in the animation, but it's not one run, then the next, then the next. Losses carry forward, but it's not as clean as it looks time-wise.

What negative modifiers do escorts get? I truly don't know. Learning opportunity for me. I think that they're tied to their strike package and don't loiter might be what he means, and that's true, but the fatigue accumulation for LRCAP is much higher than for Escort in the other direction. And 100% of the LRCAP percentage isn't there 100% of the time in both day phases. That's a disadvantage. I have always looked at LRCAP as a sometime thing. I'd rather do sweeps and not have them tied to bomber timing, or do pure escort and make the fighters ablative. LRCAP has always seemed the worst of both worlds in offense. In defense LRCAP can make sense, especially when dissimilar sized AFs are in the mix. But I watch the fatigue.

Haha, you know what? I never thought about the teleporting CAP. Excellent observation!

To be honest I don�t know anything about the penalties given to escort besides the fact that its there. Having used escorts exclusively for almost two years now I can say that my experience mirrors that of Millers. Anything used for escort have a life expectancy of basically nil. My above Manila strikes are a good example. Whether or not the Corsairs are CAP from the CVs or LRCAP you can see in the first strike just how badly the P38s on escort were mauled compared to the Corsairs.

Besides having some sort of negative modifier attached to the mission itself you also have the height disadvantage. The CAP will dive on the escorts causing further losses.

I have played as you have using sweeps followed by escorted bombers. The worked very well in 43 and early 44 when the quality of allied fighters (P47s/Corsair) was so much better than Japanese Georges and Tojos. Now in late 44 and forward I�m facing a complete wall of basically thousands of Franks. At Saigon there were 900 fighters on CAP at most.

If you send a lone sweep (25 planes) against 900 fighters on a layered CAP you will get beat up. So at this point I started adding LRCAP to the sweeps and did remarkably better. The problems with this is our stupid "agreement" about not using LRCAP for pure escort. LRCAP is almost impossible to control as I said before. This one of the biggest reason I avoided using it. That and the insane fatigue. This time I used 200 planes on LRCAP above Manila but the sweeps (and possible the LRCAP) rained in. Thus the bombers took off in the AM phase before the sweeps had cleared the CAP. So now my bombers possibly got "LRCAP escort" and here we are...

Its not like I would have like this to go in before the bombers...

quote:

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

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 38,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-51B Mustang x 49
P-51D Mustang x 124
F4U-1A Corsair x 11
F4U-1D Corsair x 72

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
24 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51B Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
24 x P-51B Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet

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

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 38,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38L Lightning x 15
P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 25
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 25
P-51B Mustang x 48
P-51D Mustang x 75
F4U-1A Corsair x 11
F4U-1D Corsair x 30

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51B Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
23 x P-51B Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-47D2 Thunderbolt sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-51D Mustang sweeping at 32000 feet
25 x P-47D25 Thunderbolt sweeping at 32000 feet

EDIT: Looking at the above sweeps it actually enhances my belief that the possible LRCAP shown up over Manila is infact NOT LRCAP set for Manila at all. Looking at the number of the last bombrun that "LRCAP" is absolutely fatigued/shot down and is down to just a couple of planes. But in the first sweep there are 72 Corsair "1Ds" present. The only model set to LRCAP Manila directly was "1Ds".

I also came up with another possible source for the Manila "LRCAP". I have a big convoy unloading at Batangas 1 hex south of Manila. That TFs is LRCAPed from iloilo and consists of Lower EXP "1As" and "1Ds" doing CAP/LRCAP to gain EXP. Its very possible that LRCAP "strayed" into Manila.

This just further enhances the problem with having a HR/agreement that tries to limit LRCAP. You can NEVER tell for sure where the LRCAP comes from except looking at where the losses occurred after the turn. So I could just set a massive LRCAP over a nearby TF fully knowing it will stray to where I want it. Or I could simply set the the LRCAP to where I want it and then tell my opponent it must have strayed from somewhere. And he could never tell whether I was lying or not. Its just an impossible HR/Agreement. Simple as that.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 11/1/2013 10:37:06 AM >

(in reply to Quixote)

Post #: 2477

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 9:33:21 AM

JocMeister

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

No communication from Erik last night. I�m going to send him a last email now telling him that if I havn�t received a turn or communication on Sunday morning I�m going to declare the game as finished. Our email conversations last night led to absolutely nothing. I�m still not sure what the problem is. Erik keeps telling me I have "intentionally broken" our agreement. He keeps telling me we had an agreement not to use LRCAP instead of Escort. I have never denied that. In fact I have been very open about that.

This is not the first time we have this discussion. We had exactly the same discussion in Burma 2 years ago when the exact same thing happened. IE the bombers arrived before the sweeps/LRCAP and Eriks CAP was still in place. Just as now we had a furious discussion. The only thing gotten out of that discussion was that yes, LRCAP is hard to control. I havn�t used LRCAP much since I havn�t needed to. But now as the map shrinks and Erik sets up these "super airfields" with 500-900 fighters on CAP I�m not sure what he expects me to do? Of course I have to use LRCAP to aide the sweeps. And sometimes the bombers go in before the sweeps. I can�t control that. No one can!

I did what I could to minimize the effects of this. Foremost by setting ONLY escorts from Iloilo where the bombers took off from so incase the sweeps rained in so would the LRCAP. I had 400 Fighters on escorts which got absolutely KILLED by his CAP and he probably shoot down 50 4Es or more. And this is not good enough... ah well. I feel I have done nothing wrong and if the game ends now I can hold my head up high.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2478

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 11:43:19 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

I posted this in obvert�s AAR:

quote:

(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 JocMeister)

Post #: 2479

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 11:44:50 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi Jocke,

Won't get involved in terms of taking sides but sorry to see the game has come to this point (again). It's a massive shame, as you say, as we invest SOOOOO much time in the game AND the AAR's. I do hope you both find a resolution and play through to the end as you're so near......

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2480

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 11:53:32 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 Speedysteve)

Post #: 2481

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 1:17:50 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

I agree with you that such an HR is unworkable in the late game (especially) when AF all become huge and maxed out on size, they tend to be close-packed together, and the numbers of planes is huge. When you add naval air in the mix with possible leakage onto land targets it becomes impossible to manage or to unravel from the reports we players receive.

900 fighters on CAP over Saigon? In my mind I'm hearing Symon/JWE cussing. Shades of GJ and Rader. If you go to the extremes of the model you get extreme "whatthefoo" results and shouldn't be surprised at anything in the reports.

For me, as always, the issue is not the mechanics so much as the, for lack of a better term, unmannerly assumption that one player can reach across the board and "touch" the other player's OOB. Think of another game--chess, backgammon, poker--where that sort of intrusion would be expected and allowed. Can't. They're YOUR planes. His are HIS. The devs went to extreme lengths to research the operating and design stats of each and every aircraft. And then players add HRs to prevent planes from doing what they, yes, really could do in real life.

If this ends here I'm sorry. But let this AAR and game be an epitaph on HRs. At least those that try to "improve" the air game.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2482

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 1:46:30 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

For me, as always, the issue is not the mechanics so much as the, for lack of a better term, unmannerly assumption that one player can reach across the board and "touch" the other player's OOB. Think of another game--chess, backgammon, poker--where that sort of intrusion would be expected and allowed. Can't. They're YOUR planes. His are HIS. The devs went to extreme lengths to research the operating and design stats of each and every aircraft. And then players add HRs to prevent planes from doing what they, yes, really could do in real life.

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2483

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 2:23:48 PM

JocMeister

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

Thanks for commenting guys. We�ll see where it ends. I still have hopes the game can continue. My view on it is pretty much what roger says. I just want to play the game and lately the best way to do that seems to be keeping our "communication" to a minimum and just send the turns back and forth. I asked Erik this after the last "discussion" when I "suicide reconned" (forgot to cancel the movement) and the turns flowed very well for a couple of weeks after that.

Perhaps I have become more cynical or just matured as a player but I want to play the game.

I think it has boiled down to two different interpretations of the LRCAP agreement. Erik interpret our "agreement" that LRCAP should not be allowed in any area where it can interfere with bombings. My view on that is that its simply impossible to play the game under those limitations. I can�t simply stand down all LRCAP around Luzon every time I�m going to bomb anything. In this case I have LRCAP up over a BIG amphib TF unloading 1 hex south of Manila. I also have a BIG LRCAP up over both bombardment TFs in case they ended up in "indian country". Its very likely that some of this LRCAP is the LRCAP that showed up over Manila. I can�t control that and that has been my point from the beginning. What if it was the CV CAP that showed up over Manila? Does that mean I have to keep my CVs 12 hexes from any bombings from now on? I can�t bomb a base prior or during to an amphib landing because that would give the bombers protection from the LRCAP covering the amphibs?

I simply cannot play under those circumstances. Its just impossible.

My interpretation of our agreement was simply to not exclusively use LRCAP for pure bomber escort and try to avoid situations where that happens. This was the agreement (as I perceived it) two years ago. Had Erik suggested this today I would simply have said no because I know (now) the mechanics of the game makes this very hard to follow. Even more so in the BETA.

I still hope this can come to a solution. But I want CRYSTAL clear "agreements" or HRs to avoid the constant discussions on controversy that has followed this game the last 6 months.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2484

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 3:07:16 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Which still isn't the point. It's players trying to "improve unto real life" models they can't see, didn't develop, and don't understand, all based on sandboxing some statistically invalid number of trials. And letting years-long games end over beefs with those HRs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 2485

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 3:19:04 PM

Crackaces

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

I think the last 2 pages of this AAR defines very well why opponents for this game must be selected very carefully. The game last longer then many Hollywood marriages and I think this AAR shows why it is important that the players share a worldview.

It appears to me that Eric has a very concrete worldview of the combat results and visualizes these results as a reality that can be controlled to conform to this worldview. Let us take an LRCAP over the target. In my worldview I see an abstraction of some percentage of planes that appear with each fragmented result, not the same planes recycling at altitude. Maybe this is what occurs in the code but it is an abstraction of sorts. But when these two worldviews collide, and one side has an insistence on projecting that worldview . a real conflict results between the players. In this case I believe the results are not as important as that the combat replay reflects the worldview. Thus every single bomber might be shot down but if somehow LRCAP planes show up the opponent will complain that the situation did not fit their worldview.

My first PBEM game I rampaged through an under defended Burma, which my opponent decided to defend the Irrawaddy Valley. Almost every turn was a grumble about how it was completely impossible to cross the border and attack through the jungle. Despite my hours of illustrating the paths of Operation Extended Capital and the Historical IJ operation at Imphal. No amount of discussion was going to blend our worldviews because eventually I understood that the game my opponent desired was a Pacific focused Solomon's -- Philippines Campaign, and he over prepared for that worldview.

Using the KB not to strike Pearl Harbor but as naval platforms to ensure a rapid blitzkrieg of Singapore i.e. "Mersing Gambit"[BTW A gambit is when you give up something valuable to take advantage of a situation .. that move simply redirects efforts to a different strategy

] Is the latest discussion for a home rule to conform to a historical sense of reality. But in game terms . it is quite interesting ...just not interesting to a player that believes a blitzkrieg threating India would incite a different Allied response.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 2486

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:07:40 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Exactly my point. Care to show me one AAR where a P-47 or Corsair has flown anywhere under 10k feet?

There isn't any.

It's not players that are preventing planes from doing what they did in real life, it's the air code. It's also why flying an escort mission is a mass death sentence for pilots, and why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2487

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:16:08 PM

Crackaces

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

quote:

why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

That debate ended up with one fine gentleman leaving our forum

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 2488

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:28:04 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Exactly my point. Care to show me one AAR where a P-47 or Corsair has flown anywhere under 10k feet?

There isn't any.

It's not players that are preventing planes from doing what they did in real life, it's the air code. It's also why flying an escort mission is a mass death sentence for pilots, and why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

I don't have any yet. When I do you'll see this.

Heck, in my game with Cliff I just drove a large Japanese tank formation away from Urumchi with BIPLANES! Destroyed/disabled about 15 tanks. He withdrew, giving the base time to up the forts and repair disablement. (If he's reading this I don't mind.

)

Escort in the game is there to get the bombers through. I agree the loss rates are high. But the bombers do good work if you don't constantly set them to make readily-repairable holes in runways. I personally think sweeps are vastly overused, especially by Japan. But Allied players need to learn that just because he sweeps you don't have to fight him there. You can let him waste supply and ops losses drilling holes in the sky. No sweep ever hurt a grunt.

My opinion is a lot of players are in "air ruts." They have formed habits, many pre-betas, and continue to do the same old same old. Their choice.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/1/2013 5:31:01 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 2489

RE: 1945! - 11/1/2013 5:31:15 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

That debate ended up with one fine gentleman leaving our forum