RE: Battle for Okinawa!

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: Battle for Okinawa!

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: Battle for Okinawa!

Page: << < prev 101 102 [103] 104 105 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 12:38:39 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

This makes defense way too powerful. You simply have no tools available to combat this. If the escort mission wasn�t so ridiculously penalized the attacker would have at least one tool to strike back at this CAP hives and would force the defender to spread out on multiple bases instead.

But I doubt the post will lead to anything. The community (well, one or two very loud individuals really ) is completely unwilling to try and evolve the game and rather have a static and stagnant game because it suits their needs.

You have several tools to combat it. They just aren't the historic tools.

In short, you have to cripple the economy early enough that Japan can't:

1) Afford the HI to build the planes and engines in the first place.

2) Afford the pilot tax in the mid- and late-game.

If you let him build the planes and pilots the use of supply as a stand-in for avgas will allow huge air defenses. Changing this at its base requires blowing up the core assumptions of the game. So long as "avgas" can be produced by any and all LI with local non-Oil Resources you can't beat him in the air if you let him build. Pilot training will help the Allies some, but the quantity differences are too stark in a PDU ON game to overcome by brute force. At this point in the game's life this is pretty well known. In this particular game you had other things you had to do in 1942/1943 than destroy his economic base. But that's what you have to do to avoid late-war mega-air. And play with PDU OFF.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/9/2013 1:40:21 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3061

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 1:25:02 PM

JocMeister

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

Agree with everything you said. But its a shame the game comes down to that. The ONLY viable strategy as I see it is to avoid air combat as much as possible. Just save planes and pilots until you can get within range of the HI and/or oil. Every lost pilot and plane before that is a waste. A rough generalization of course but I think that statement covers pretty well how an allied players mindset should be when playing a competent Japanese player that has done the proper planning for a late war game.

There are only 3 targets worth losing planes and pilots over.
-Oil
-HI/LI
-AC factories

Another rough advice would be to forget any notion of attrition the Japanese by aerial battle. Its not going to happen. Planes are DIRT cheap. 20.000 planes for 1 single ID. No question about what is easiest to achieve. In the last couple of months I have destroyed 25-30 IDs worth of troops. Do the math on how many planes that is and its very obvious trying any kind of attrition in the air is a complete waste of time.

I�m already using what I wrote above as gospel in my other game. I have a healthy pool of 200 4Es saved up together with some 500 P39/P40s in 11/42. My opponent won�t see many 4Es before I reach his oil...And I will only fight defensively in the air. Fun? No. Probably not for my opponent either. But you have to play within the limits of the game. Japan is given a fantasy air force. The best way to fight that is simply to avoid it. Fight were you are strong on the sea and ground instead.

This will be how the game is played in the future. Mark my words. Its all about numbers and nothing else. This I strongly believe is extremely bad for the game. When one of the biggest and most important aspects of the game is no longer played by one side because its so poorly balanced we are going to start losing players from both camps. I can absolutely understand Japanese players reluctance to start giving some of what is quite arguable their biggest (even only) asset. But this HAS to be balanced somehow. Its making the game boring. For BOTH sides.

As with everything players are driving things to the absolute edge. The game HAS to evolve with the players or you will end up with nothing more then extreme tactics that in turn gives birth to other extreme tactics to counter that. And in the end we will have a game that is probably not very fun to play. This would not be the first game that went down that way.

I guess what I�m trying to say is that the air war simply isn�t any fun. It should be the pillar on which this game rests. But its turning into an anchor that is dragging it down instead. It will take some time before people start realizing that but its I�m absolutely convincted that is how it will end.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 12/9/2013 2:27:36 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3062

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 1:27:52 PM

mind_messing

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

------------------------
Logistics
------------------------
The news supply chain is now up an running. I�ve decided to skip using the Marinas as a "halfway point". So stuff go directly from PH to Luzon. This means they will have to refuel on the return leg at Midway. So I have a couple of high END xAKs sitting at Midway refueling the TFs returning. Works well.

Supply is once again back up at 3 million on Luzon and fuel is nearing a million. In a month it will be at least double that.

Good, ensuring that the GI's get their subscription magazines and the Stars and Stripes is vital to the war effort.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3063

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 1:32:22 PM

mind_messing

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

On a more serious note, the Allies (the Americans, at least) should be allowed to draw replacement planes in exchange for political points to represent planes being diverted from Europe to the Pacific. Considering how PP's start to become less and less important to the Allies as the number of unrestricted units snowballs, this could be an effective solution to balance the two sides.

In order to moderate it's use, better performing aircraft should be more expensive, as should aircraft that have only just recently went in to production.

(in reply to Powloon)

Post #: 3064

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 3:53:24 PM

JocMeister

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

With the risk of sounding like a broken record...

The problem isn�t with the allies. The problem is a Japanese one. There has to be some kind of break on the Japanese air force. Personally I still feel limiting pilots is the best way. Short of that its kind of ridiculous how cheap planes are to produce.

If there is no incentive for the Allied player to actually do something in the air there won�t be any air war. That is no fun for either side. I�m dead sure I�m correct in my thinking. My other game seems to confirm this. I have absolutely no reason to try and do anything in the air other then CAP. I�m currently ahead with 3:1 having lost only 1500 planes. I�m sure this is going to drive my opponent mad eventually. Hopefully he will spend a crazy amount of resources on getting a fantasy air force up. Only to find nothing to fight against. Anyone here think he will enjoy that any more than I will?

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 3065

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 4:02:47 PM

paullus99

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

Since the Allies (particularly the US) had the means to ramp up production as much as they wanted - and had the population to support an expanded airforce - but it isn't reflected in the game mechanics (and if Japan appeared to be much stronger than they were historically, don't you think the Joint Chiefs would have scaled the USAAF & Navy appropriately?)...

But hey, its a game that caters to giving Japan the greatest possible advantages.....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3066

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 4:12:44 PM

JocMeister

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

In the real war they would have of course.

But I think adding even more planes to the mix might not be the best solution. The game is already struggling to handle the concentrations of aircraft that we players constantly do. Adding more allied planes would I think be adding more "broken" to whats already broken. Better to put a break on Japanese production.

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 3067

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 4:33:24 PM

paullus99

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

That's very true - given what we see in the endgame.....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3068

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 7:52:11 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Agree with everything you said. But its a shame the game comes down to that. The ONLY viable strategy as I see it is to avoid air combat as much as possible. Just save planes and pilots until you can get within range of the HI and/or oil. Every lost pilot and plane before that is a waste. A rough generalization of course but I think that statement covers pretty well how an allied players mindset should be when playing a competent Japanese player that has done the proper planning for a late war game.

There are only 3 targets worth losing planes and pilots over.
-Oil
-HI/LI
-AC factories

Another rough advice would be to forget any notion of attrition the Japanese by aerial battle. Its not going to happen. Planes are DIRT cheap. 20.000 planes for 1 single ID. No question about what is easiest to achieve. In the last couple of months I have destroyed 25-30 IDs worth of troops. Do the math on how many planes that is and its very obvious trying any kind of attrition in the air is a complete waste of time.

I�m already using what I wrote above as gospel in my other game. I have a healthy pool of 200 4Es saved up together with some 500 P39/P40s in 11/42. My opponent won�t see many 4Es before I reach his oil...And I will only fight defensively in the air. Fun? No. Probably not for my opponent either. But you have to play within the limits of the game. Japan is given a fantasy air force. The best way to fight that is simply to avoid it. Fight were you are strong on the sea and ground instead.

This will be how the game is played in the future. Mark my words. Its all about numbers and nothing else. This I strongly believe is extremely bad for the game. When one of the biggest and most important aspects of the game is no longer played by one side because its so poorly balanced we are going to start losing players from both camps. I can absolutely understand Japanese players reluctance to start giving some of what is quite arguable their biggest (even only) asset. But this HAS to be balanced somehow. Its making the game boring. For BOTH sides.

As with everything players are driving things to the absolute edge. The game HAS to evolve with the players or you will end up with nothing more then extreme tactics that in turn gives birth to other extreme tactics to counter that. And in the end we will have a game that is probably not very fun to play. This would not be the first game that went down that way.

I guess what I�m trying to say is that the air war simply isn�t any fun. It should be the pillar on which this game rests. But its turning into an anchor that is dragging it down instead. It will take some time before people start realizing that but its I�m absolutely convincted that is how it will end.

I could answer each and every one of your points, but what's the point? You're convinced you're right.

I'll just ask one question: in how many AARs do we see a surprise, bolt-from-the-blue massed carrier strike from west of Sumatra, in 1943, aimed at burning down Palembang?

Players of all stripes like to play this game as a bash-a-thon. There is very little attention paid to strategic war until the last stages. If you try a bash-a-thon in the air you'll lose as the Allies under PDU ON. So why do it?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/9/2013 8:53:26 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3069

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 9:46:54 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.

You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3070

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 9:58:17 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.

You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.

Sure LBA could defend against it. If the Japanese player expanded the AF to max and devoted 250+ fighters to CAP every day, plus the av support to keep them up. How many do?

I believe crsutton did this long ago. It's the only one I know of.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 3071

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:07:24 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Yeah, sorry meant that the recent beta changes appear to have lessened the co-ordination for an LBA strike against your carriers (at least thats the impression I get reading the AARs).

I'd expect most Japanese players would have sufficient aircraft on the airfields of Southern Sumatra to make it tough for the allies

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3072

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:23:13 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.

You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.

Sure LBA could defend against it. If the Japanese player expanded the AF to max and devoted 250+ fighters to CAP every day, plus the av support to keep them up. How many do?

I believe crsutton did this long ago. It's the only one I know of.

Totally agree with the Moose here. I rarely actively defend Palembang before I truly have to. Simply don't have enough aircraft or Base Forces to have a 'back water' area fully defended upon a possibility rather then a probability.

When Dan launched his brilliant assault upon Sumatra he could have taken Palembang and Singapore in DAYS had he known the weakness in the area. Since he paused it allowed me to rush reinforcements to the region, slowly build-up and hold things, and then begin a counterattack. I think there was a small Chutai of Oscars at Palembang and two regular Base Forces present there the day he landed.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/9/2013 11:24:31 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3073

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:23:24 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Yeah, sorry meant that the recent beta changes appear to have lessened the co-ordination for an LBA strike against your carriers (at least thats the impression I get reading the AARs).

I'd expect most Japanese players would have sufficient aircraft on the airfields of Southern Sumatra to make it tough for the allies

Well, you do bring up another issue, and it's endemic among my AFB brethren. Carrier Love. It's a disease. As if carriers were these precious snowflakes that may never be risked to accomplish a strategic objective that could be a war-winner.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 3074

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:26:35 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Agree with that

I do rather protect my carriers!

Cheers John for that, maybe its something to bear in mind then as a likely tactic

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3075

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:27:02 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

It would be interesting to see that, if only to see if LBA can actually defend against it.

You have to assume that any competent JFB will have prepared for that.

Sure LBA could defend against it. If the Japanese player expanded the AF to max and devoted 250+ fighters to CAP every day, plus the av support to keep them up. How many do?

I believe crsutton did this long ago. It's the only one I know of.

Totally agree with the Moose here. I rarely actively defend Palembang before I truly have to. Simply don't have enough aircraft or Base Forces to have a 'back water' area fully defended upon a possibility rather then a probability.

When Dan launched his brilliant assault upon Sumatra he could have taken Palembang and Singapore in DAYS had he known the weakness in the area. Since he paused it allowed me to rush reinforcements to the region, slowly build-up and hold things, and then begin a counterattack. I think there was a small Chutai of Oscars at Palembang and two regular Base Forces present there the day he landed.

Excuse, but didn't you two have an HR that put an iron dome over Palembang? Without that HR his invasion would have behaved very, very differently and you would have lost the war in that campaign. When you have HRs like that Japan is free to put its air force up forward on odd forays into India and Oz.

Palembang isn't a back water. It's the game. It's the enchilada. But inserting HRs to leave it naked? While also playing an uber-Japan mod? Please.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3076

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:37:43 PM

John 3rd

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

Correct. WE did have a HR against Strat Bombing until later in the game. I have modified my stance on this subject after the discussion over the Strat Bomb HR occurred, however, there are reasons for that but most AFB don't like hearing them.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/9/2013 11:44:17 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3077

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 10:42:38 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Correct. WE did have a HR against Strat Bombing until later in the game. There are reasons for that but most AFB don't like hearing them.

I'm going to stop this here as I don't want to pollute Jocke's house. Let's just say we disagree.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 3078

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/9/2013 11:56:08 PM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Agree with that

I do rather protect my carriers!

Cheers John for that, maybe its something to bear in mind then as a likely tactic

Note to self ---- defend Palembang early.

_____________________________

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 3079

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 6:11:15 AM

JocMeister

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I could answer each and every one of your points, but what's the point? You're convinced you're right.

I'll just ask one question: in how many AARs do we see a surprise, bolt-from-the-blue massed carrier strike from west of Sumatra, in 1943, aimed at burning down Palembang?

Players of all stripes like to play this game as a bash-a-thon. There is very little attention paid to strategic war until the last stages. If you try a bash-a-thon in the air you'll lose as the Allies under PDU ON. So why do it?

Hmm, I think I may have been unclear in my post as you seem to disagree with me? What you are saying is almost exactly what I�m trying to say.

A CV strike on PB would absolutely fit my thinking. If you are trading planes and pilots for oil/HI/LI/factories you are doing it right. But if you are trading planes for planes you are doing it wrong. This is of course a very rough generalization but its the rough idea I�m applying to my second game.

Am I convinced I�m right? Yes of course otherwise I wouldn�t try it. If you disagree with it I would love to hear it. You know I have always valued you input and advice.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3080

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 8:37:04 AM

JocMeister

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

27th March 1945
______________________________________________________________________________

Erik uploaded the turn file last night to the wrong folder. So we only got one turn done yesterday. Been looking at the Command modern air/naval combat a lot lately. That looks solid with loads of scenarios and support! Anyone tried it?

------------------------
Destination Okinawa
------------------------
I moved my fleet to just 1 hex SW of Naha. First small TF will go into Naha tomorrow under heavy LBA CAP. I don�t think Erik will intervene. The window for that has passed. I have 350 fighters on CAP now. 40 something subs and loads of SCTFs protecting from Bombardments. Even if he tried he would most likely have spent all OPS points before reaching Naha.

Looks like Erik indeed will shift from Formosa to Kyushu. Lots of traffic going towards Formosa. If he abandons it I get that one for free too. Fingers crossed.

Half the air force and most of the heavy ships have shifted over to Kyushu. Patience...

------------------------
China
------------------------
Mostly strat bombing going on now. Troops are still moving East. Looks like Erik has started shifting out from Nanning. So basically my flanking move was successful. Superstacking might be a viable strategy when there is no room to maneuver. When there is you can simply move around.

------------------------
LUZON!
------------------------
Aparri finally reaches level 9.

------------------------
Sumatra
------------------------
Armor lands at Oosthaven. Slowly but surely we are getting there.

Let me know if there is any screen you want to see. I usually try to attach one with every update but when nothing important have happened I tend to skip it...

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 12/10/2013 10:34:10 AM >

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3081

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 9:25:09 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Yep, the map with Aparri in China, its on the same page as the Swedish map with London

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3082

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 9:33:18 AM

JocMeister

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

Whooops!

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 3083

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 11:40:28 AM

JocMeister

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

Strategic Bombing
______________________________________________________________________________

I�m starting to run out of targets in China. I�ve pretty soon taken care of all those smaller industry targets. After that I have to take care of the big targets that still has a small amount of working industry left. Since Erik hasn�t moved in any NFs I have been able to do this completely undisturbed. I�m losing around 1-2 B29s per raid to OPS/Flak and I have been able to keep up a high frequency of attacks. Usually I can fly for two night straight and then rest for 4-6 days.

What I have to decide on soon is what to do next. I�ve ruled out restarting the Marianas campaign. Losses are simply too high. Having Aparri go to level 9 opens up targets on Kyushu. But there arn�t much there to blow up actually.

I also have the option to rebase the B29s to Okinawa in about two months when more bases are secured and built up. It will get crowded there though. And from my testing it seems pretty much impossible to hit the aircraft factories with night bombing. These are the targets I really want. Its the only way I can ever get started on that illusive daylight campaign...For that to happen I need to land on the HI proper...Something I will start to really look into in the coming weeks. I actually have some of the Formosa troops prepping for a landing on Kyushu.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3084

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 12:31:10 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I could answer each and every one of your points, but what's the point? You're convinced you're right.

I'll just ask one question: in how many AARs do we see a surprise, bolt-from-the-blue massed carrier strike from west of Sumatra, in 1943, aimed at burning down Palembang?

Players of all stripes like to play this game as a bash-a-thon. There is very little attention paid to strategic war until the last stages. If you try a bash-a-thon in the air you'll lose as the Allies under PDU ON. So why do it?

Hmm, I think I may have been unclear in my post as you seem to disagree with me? What you are saying is almost exactly what I�m trying to say.

A CV strike on PB would absolutely fit my thinking. If you are trading planes and pilots for oil/HI/LI/factories you are doing it right. But if you are trading planes for planes you are doing it wrong. This is of course a very rough generalization but its the rough idea I�m applying to my second game.

Am I convinced I�m right? Yes of course otherwise I wouldn�t try it. If you disagree with it I would love to hear it. You know I have always valued you input and advice.

I was reacting to this. It seems to contradict what else you are saying.

"This will be how the game is played in the future. Mark my words. Its all about numbers and nothing else. This I strongly believe is extremely bad for the game. When one of the biggest and most important aspects of the game is no longer played by one side because its so poorly balanced we are going to start losing players from both camps. I can absolutely understand Japanese players reluctance to start giving some of what is quite arguable their biggest (even only) asset. But this HAS to be balanced somehow. Its making the game boring. For BOTH sides.

As with everything players are driving things to the absolute edge. The game HAS to evolve with the players or you will end up with nothing more then extreme tactics that in turn gives birth to other extreme tactics to counter that. And in the end we will have a game that is probably not very fun to play. This would not be the first game that went down that way.

I guess what I�m trying to say is that the air war simply isn�t any fun. It should be the pillar on which this game rests. But its turning into an anchor that is dragging it down instead. It will take some time before people start realizing that but its I�m absolutely convincted that is how it will end."

IOW, you say in one place you are focusing on using your air forces in a strategic role, but then say this is no "fun" and a detriment to the long-term health of the game. And further that the game engine needs to be changed to return the fun tot he air war.

I'm glad you seem to have realized you can't win a war of sweeps in a PDU ON game. And you say you realize you need to wage economic war to stop the Japanese air force at its base. But then you also call for really massive changes to the game's core balance assumptions. Color me confused.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3085

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 12:53:41 PM

JocMeister

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

IOW, you say in one place you are focusing on using your air forces in a strategic role, but then say this is no "fun" and a detriment to the long-term health of the game. And further that the game engine needs to be changed to return the fun tot he air war.

I'm glad you seem to have realized you can't win a war of sweeps in a PDU ON game. And you say you realize you need to wage economic war to stop the Japanese air force at its base. But then you also call for really massive changes to the game's core balance assumptions. Color me confused.

No, I�m not asking for a massive change of the engine or core balance. I�m asking for some breaks to be applied to the Japanese air force. If the allied player have absolutely no incitement to do anything but stay away (from anything that isn�t oil/HI/LI/Factories) I�m saying its going to get pretty boring for BOTH sides.

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 12/10/2013 1:57:44 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3086

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 12:58:18 PM

LoBaron

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

The Moose pretty much hits the central point of all this debate.

You are playing PDU ON. By this you yielded the qualitative superiority in airframes which enabled the Allies to enact a high level of attrition to the Japanese air with acceptable loss ratios.

And then you personally hit the other central point:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
But if you are trading planes for planes you are doing it wrong.

EXACTLY!

Fighting the air war to fight the air war will never win you the war. It does not matter whether it�s PDU ON or OFF. Aircraft have to deliver ordnance on target which needs to serve an overall goal. Shooting down enemy planes is a secondary achievement strategically. And on a tactical scale, e.g. to achieve air superiority over a landing area, this is easily within capabilities of the Allied air forces.

_____________________________

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3087

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 1:19:52 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

IOW, you say in one place you are focusing on using your air forces in a strategic role, but then say this is no "fun" and a detriment to the long-term health of the game. And further that the game engine needs to be changed to return the fun tot he air war.

I'm glad you seem to have realized you can't win a war of sweeps in a PDU ON game. And you say you realize you need to wage economic war to stop the Japanese air force at its base. But then you also call for really massive changes to the game's core balance assumptions. Color me confused.

No, I�m not asking for a massive change of the engine or core balance. I�m asking for some breaks to be applied to the Japanese air force. If the allied player have absolutely no incitement to do anything but stay away (from anything that isn�t oil/HI/LI/Factories) I�m saying its going to get pretty boring for BOTH sides.

Lobaron beat me to it while I was away doing my AAR. I think you mean "brakes" to the Japanese air force. They exist in PDU OFF. If he has to keep Nate squadrons, for example, into 1945 it doesn't matter how many Georges he can build after uber-R & D spending and factory expansion. He can build them, but they'll sit in the pools.

Lobaron's other point is also spot on. The Allies can achieve local air superiority when they need it for an op. Certainly in 1944-45 they can. And that's all you need to move the peanut forward toward the HI. Bashing for bashing's sake is fruitless. Air supports Ground. Naval supports Ground. Taking territory and standing on it wins the game.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/10/2013 2:22:01 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 3088

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 1:20:27 PM

ny59giants

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

Playing with PDU "ON" gives Japan an advantage.
Playing with Realistic R&D "OFF" gives Japan another advantage.
The recent changes in the beta patches which allows unlimited aircraft on a AF9 means CAP can be in the 100s.

I have two PBEM games going, but I will modify my next game to have the Americans get some 75 plane FG vs them coming in as 3x25. How many, I haven't thought through enough yet and this will not happen for a few more years.

Since there are so few games with AARs that show players using PDU "OFF," it is hard to treat this whole subject from a realistic perspective.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 3089

RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 12/10/2013 1:25:33 PM

Wuffer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The Moose pretty much hits the central point of all this debate.

Fighting the air war to fight the air war will never win you the war. It does not matter whether it�s PDU ON or OFF. Aircraft have to deliver ordnance on target which needs to serve an overall goal. Shooting down enemy planes is a secondary achievement strategically. And on a tactical scale, e.g. to achieve air superiority over a landing area, this is easily within capabilities of the Allied air forces.

Well said, worth to repeat once more. :-)

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 3090