Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Have you and Joc looked at the Sunk Ships utility that I published? It takes a CSV output from Tracker and formats it into a text file that is suitable for attaching to a forum post. It might be easier to deal with than the screen shots. Look on the Staff Monkeys site (see my sig).

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

PP is kind of deceptive. It is easy for the Japanese to achieve 2-1 and even 3-1. There are not enough points on the map in the regular expansion zone to get to 4-1.

So it requires special circumstances to be able to achieve.

Also, against an aggressive allied player the Japanese should not be able to hold all the territory they take in 1942.

You have to win big points in naval, LCU or airpower to get over the hump.

Here is a screen from 6-42. Chungking was worth 1600 VP for IJ and -800 for Allies at this stage. Perth was worth I believe another 600 for the IJ. Add in lost armies from China and that is well over 4:1. 22242 + 2200 = 24442. 6731 - 800 = 5931.

4.12:1

Now, I would have had to really push in both places, assigning a lot of other troops that were in Burma, So Pac and other areas to OZ and buying out more from Manchuria for China. There would have been opportunities for the Allies to come back, take some valuable stuff like Noumea back, and CV clashes would have to go very well not to disrupt the balance sheet to keep a 4:1 if it was achievable.

Plus, I didn't want that kind of a game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Have you and Joc looked at the Sunk Ships utility that I published? It takes a CSV output from Tracker and formats it into a text file that is suitable for attaching to a forum post. It might be easier to deal with than the screen shots. Look on the Staff Monkeys site (see my sig).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

PP is kind of deceptive. It is easy for the Japanese to achieve 2-1 and even 3-1. There are not enough points on the map in the regular expansion zone to get to 4-1.

So it requires special circumstances to be able to achieve.

Also, against an aggressive allied player the Japanese should not be able to hold all the territory they take in 1942.

You have to win big points in naval, LCU or airpower to get over the hump.

Here is a screen from 6-42. Chungking was worth 1600 VP for IJ and -800 for Allies at this stage. Perth was worth I believe another 600 for the IJ. Add in lost armies from China and that is well over 4:1. 22242 + 2200 = 24442. 6731 - 800 = 5931.

4.12:1

Now, I would have had to really push in both places, assigning a lot of other troops that were in Burma, So Pac and other areas to OZ and buying out more from Manchuria for China. There would have been opportunities for the Allies to come back, take some valuable stuff like Noumea back, and CV clashes would have to go very well not to disrupt the balance sheet to keep a 4:1 if it was achievable.

Plus, I didn't want that kind of a game.

So I'd say you won in 6/1942 and continued playing out of the goodness of your heart .

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Here is a screen from 6-42. Chungking was worth 1600 VP for IJ and -800 for Allies at this stage. Perth was worth I believe another 600 for the IJ. Add in lost armies from China and that is well over 4:1. 22242 + 2200 = 24442. 6731 - 800 = 5931.

4.12:1

Now, I would have had to really push in both places, assigning a lot of other troops that were in Burma, So Pac and other areas to OZ and buying out more from Manchuria for China. There would have been opportunities for the Allies to come back, take some valuable stuff like Noumea back, and CV clashes would have to go very well not to disrupt the balance sheet to keep a 4:1 if it was achievable.

Plus, I didn't want that kind of a game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

The main thing is though that we weren't playing with winning as the only goal. I would have been pretty disappointed to play through 42 and have the game end, and I think Jocke would have been too. We'd agreed to play without VPs and we did, happily.

I only included this to point out the interesting things I would now want to play through with VPs involved. I wouldn't still want to win early on VPs necessarily in a future game, but I do like what it makes both players do to avoid 'losing.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Allied BB/CA/CL LOSSES
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was a bit more confusing when I matched up Jocke's and mine. l looked into the AAR and I found confirmed sinkings for the ships on my version from the distant dates in 42/43. The more recent ones are FOW. So this makes it seem that the game reports will eventually show exact results, after a year or so, but in the short term they are highly subject to FOW.

October 14, 1942 report. Mauritius and Raleigh definitely sunk in a raid on Suva.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3114172

I remember Boise going down, as that was after our second CV clash, and it ran up to hit the KB in a seemingly never ending barrage, was hit by airstrikes the next day, and still needed a BB hit to take her down on the day following!

Anyway, interesting to see how the FOW works.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[picture]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Can you share some of your night fighter thoughts?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

The main thing is though that we weren't playing with winning as the only goal. I would have been pretty disappointed to play through 42 and have the game end, and I think Jocke would have been too. We'd agreed to play without VPs and we did, happily.

I only included this to point out the interesting things I would now want to play through with VPs involved. I wouldn't still want to win early on VPs necessarily in a future game, but I do like what it makes both players do to avoid 'losing.'

Should have read this first...

Since one can 'play through' autovictory, that is my goal. Get to the requisite point wherein I could win outright and play through it. This necessitates a massive strategic pivot on January 2, 1943, as you can imagine. That's what I'm looking forward to, quite frankly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

How about Frances?