Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Those are interesting numbers. I knew you were in dire shape for CLs and I was pretty sure your DD numbers were low. That last tough naval battle, in which I lost CB Alaska and two CLs, and you lost BB Kongo and 9 DDs, would've been pretty decisive going forward. It was a great move for you to assemble the forces to fight a good fight there at Fusan but it left the cupboard pretty bare.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A reader in my forum asked the same question yesterday, so that must've been a question of interest in your AAR?

The numbers: Allies lost 152 destroyers and 64 submarines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Huh? "Staggering other worldly losses"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

Your subjective impression of 'staggering' losses differs from my own. I contend that they were staggering losses-based upon historical American losses. I understand why you suffered those losses and the 'good cause' altar upon which they were sacrificed. But parsimonious refutation of my rough estimation doesn't change my subjective impression or mind about the losses you suffered.

Now if I'm significantly wrong about the ratio of historical American DD/DE losses compared to those numbers you cited, then I'll change my mind about the subjective 'impact' of such losses. But if you lost-for argument sake-twice the number of American DDs lost in the war, you may want to let that register.

Just as you are due accolades for losing far fewer fleet CVs / escort CVEs in this game than historical, you may want to consider why / how you lost so very many more DDs / DEs than historical. Speaking for myself, such a curious distinction may merit introspection about stylistic gameplay tendencies.

On a related note: when will you and John 'open up' an AAR about 'lessons learned' from this game? Such an AAR-neither in the Japanese AAR nor the Allied AAR may be a useful discussion thread for forumites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The turn is in your court. Send it as soon as you can. I'll flip it and maybe we do another next hour.

You leaving today for Kansas or tomorrow? Whole family is going, right? You guys have fun. Don't discuss the Kansas City Chiefs en route. Focus on fun things, like how easily Japanese DDs sink.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

Your subjective impression of 'staggering' losses differs from my own. I contend that they were staggering losses-based upon historical American losses. I understand why you suffered those losses and the 'good cause' altar upon which they were sacrificed. But parsimonious refutation of my rough estimation doesn't change my subjective impression or mind about the losses you suffered.

Now if I'm significantly wrong about the ratio of historical American DD/DE losses compared to those numbers you cited, then I'll change my mind about the subjective 'impact' of such losses. But if you lost-for argument sake-twice the number of American DDs lost in the war, you may want to let that register.

Just as you are due accolades for losing far fewer fleet CVs / escort CVEs in this game than historical, you may want to consider why / how you lost so very many more DDs / DEs than historical. Speaking for myself, such a curious distinction may merit introspection about stylistic gameplay tendencies.

On a related note: when will you and John 'open up' an AAR about 'lessons learned' from this game? Such an AAR-neither in the Japanese AAR nor the Allied AAR may be a useful discussion thread for forumites.

I think what Canoerebel is trying to point out is that this was not a historically accurate mod. And then hindsight, the non-historical modifications, plus the enhanced abilities on the side of Japanese production (that are included in WiTP so that it is a "game" that can be enjoyed from both sides), I contend, make it impractical to make comparisons between the game just finished and the historical outcome from WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Allied CA losses.