Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Historical opinion needed - PBEM question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Historical opinion needed - PBEM question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 1:59:34 AM   
SeaWolF K

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/1/2003
Status: offline 		OK, at the risk of giving this away to Thayne, I have been trying to decide if it is just the map that makes Canton island look like the key to holding in the Central Pacific for an extended period of time or not. From the game perspective, it cuts the self deployment of A/C to Oz prevents B-17s from bombing the Gilberts etc. However how much of this is just due to the map and how much is historical. I am considering launching an operation to take it and Baker island in Dec 1941. Was this an operation that Japan could have carried out or is it by its very nature a gamey tactic?
Post #: 1
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 2:38:55 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		That was part of the map border discussion...Allies can't go far emough east to get around the air cover...in real life, they could...let conscience be your guide.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to SeaWolF K)
Post #: 2
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 2:51:01 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I think any time either player sends invasion TF to enemy base that is outside their own air control they are being bad. Since CV extend air cover then all you need is a CV assigned to cover any landing.
I get irked by people who early in game have TF arriving deep in enemy space with no surface TF or air cover.
The only good thing I find here is I am able to whack a few transports for free.

I consider Canton and Baker valid targets. First I take Makin to have a size 3 port and then I take Tarawa and build an airfield.
Once Tarawa can provide fighter cover Baker and Canton are valid targets.

Now I know I could just load up on turn 1 and land on Canton and/or Baker Islands and get away with it. But I know that because I know the Allied deployments. I don't think Japan knew they could do it so they had to do things the old fashioned way. With surface protection and air cover.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 3
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 3:25:55 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		I agree with Mogami, its not gamey if you support it. Canton and Pymara/Christmas islands were vital for the LOC to Oz. Historically reinforceing these islands were a priority when war broke out. In fact its what preoccupied the US for the first months of the war.

Now I not sure in real life if Canton was within range of Bettys from the Gilberts or vise versa the Gilberts being within range of B-17s from Canton. Map distortion can be pretty bad in the game. For example its possible in the game for F4Fs to fly between Midway and Wake, which I know was impossible.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 4
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 3:43:40 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I don't know where they came from but on Sunday July 18 1943 Japanese bombers tried to bomb Canton Island but AA and fighters drove them off. They were 2 engine landbased bombers.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 5
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 5:22:42 AM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		I will point out that the Americans can run the CVs South to cover that area and if the Japanese is getting aggresive without aircover they can get some early game ship kills out of it.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 6
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 5:48:19 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		HI, I don't comment about the game when it is human versus AI. The human who likes to exploit the AI can have his fun so I am only pointing out how to make the game more realistic. If versus the AI you are interested in high scores go for it..
I don't make many rules after turn 1 in PBEM I figure it is my job to teach the other guy why he needs to use aircover and support TF. I really like it when players treat me like the AI.
For almost every kind of game exploit there is a cure that does not require a counter exploit.
My philosophy of war is simple.

1. When opposed by larger force I defend. My defense will begin at a point I can hold because of some advantage I possess there.

2. In order to justify an attack I must identify an enemy weakness and have sufficent force to exploit this weakness. My material has to be able to reach the target ahead of any enemy reaction and I have to be certain I can maintain my advantage long enough to destroy or drive off the enemy.

Since once a game begins I do not know the enemy dispositions and what his intentions are I cannot justify my conducting any operations in areas I do not have absolute control over. As Japan it is bad enough in SRA early on. It takes a while to achive control and some forces have to risk movement early that I would never allow later in game or in other areas.
When Allied I can see no reason to ever do anything "hasty"
The entire early war period I spend making sure of my rear areas and main bases. I pretty much allow the Japanese to do what they want as long as it does not involve the loss of anything I consider important. Anything the Japanese can get to early I don't mind. I try to ambush him when and where I can but I don't risk my material.
US Airgroups are not ready at the start. So I move them to where they are required and train. I don't venture into enemy areas while the A6M2 bonus and Amph bonus are in effect and when a large portion of Japans military is not commited. Before I begin planning I want to understand the enemy plan fully. It's not hard to figure out. Just keep track of what and where you encounter enemy force. If there are 8 Div in PI you know only 4 more are available for use elsewhere. If it is late Dec and you only know where 3 Japanese divisions are LOOKOUT. They are moving somewhere that requires time to cover the distance.
If the Japanese player commits all 12 Div and 5 Bde and I know exactly where they are and what they are doing and how long they will be busy then I can look for a place to hurt them.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/1/2005 10:49:50 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 7
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 5:59:14 AM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		I differ from Mogami on the philosohpy question. My feeling is that if a Japanese player is agressive enough to go for Canton early he will give me opportunities to hit back pretty hard early in the game.

Playing some one like Mogami I am less likely to lose Canton Island but I am also less likely to destroy baby Butai in February 42.

I punch back hard starting from the earliest turn of the game. Not stupidly (though I have certainly made mistakes) but hard. Both my opponents can testify to this. if your Japanese and aggresive you take certain risks and those can be costly.

< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 2/2/2005 4:01:33 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 8
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 6:24:14 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, As Japan I count on and am rarely disapointed in the Allied player coming out to fight in areas that are not of vital interest to him.
Sicne my entire plan for 1942 is to drain Allied material so that it is not on hand for his 1943 offensive. I don't care what I lose as japan as long as the Allied player loses enough to limit him later. I know my A6M2 in 1942 are better then anything i will have in 1943 so I use them.
I have destroyed a lot of material that Allied players have pretty much presented me on a platter. I could never reach it but it comes right to me. It comes right to me while i am still stronger. It sails right into my areas of control without even first trying to gain control in a slower manner. (Brady has landed on Tarawa in Feb 1942. Yes he captured the base back. But we will see what keeping it costs and what he has in 1943.

The B-29 comes in May 1944. The Allied player has to pace himself so that when May 1944 arrives he has working airfields of proper size and in supply to use his B-29 versus Home Islands.
This means simply the Allies need Saipan and area by May 1944. As Japan every month past that date I retain Saipan is victory. If I lose it before then it does not matter much when because it is no use till May.
As Allies I know I am going to have to capture bases enroute Saipan. If I begin offensive operations (Makin/Tarawa) In August 1943 I have 10 months (300 turns) to reach Saipan.
Somewhere between Tarawa and Saipan the Japanese are going to have to make their big stand. That is the battle I must win. If I win that battle I win the war.
1942 I go duck hunting. My 6 CV go out after IJN CV. I'd really like it if I sank 1 for each 1 I lost. (I'd like to sink enemy CV for free but I will except 1 for 1 trades)
Just as important is killing IJN pilots.
Most Japanese player do the same as the Allies they send stuff where you can kill it that you could not kill if it stayed where it belonged. I count on the enemy to provide me with targets. I don't need to provide him with easy kills. He has to come get me.

I can't keep track of all the enemy CA and BB I sink because they tried to make some bombardment on a base where even if it works they only kill a few hundered troops or destroy a dozen aircraft. Sure they get away with it alot. Happens to me all the time. But then 1 day the weather is clear and their TF is spotted in range of LBA and they give back 10x the VP they might have scored. (A BB is over 125vp)(A CA is over 30)

I bombard bases myself. I do it to suppress enemy airfields that are in range of TF I have moving in area. I do it to aid landings. I don't do it just to score a few points.
There are Allied players who by May 1942 have lost over 100 ships!!! (and then there are Japanese players who do the same) Japan is never going to out produce the Allies So if as Japan I can sink 150 enemy ships and lose 75 I'll do it. I can't see how I can avoid losing a lot of AP in the first 3 months. I try to not lose combat ships. As Japan I don't like to do the 1 for 1 trade in CV. I need at least 2 for 1 to be happy.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 9
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 9:41:06 AM   
von Beanie


Posts: 295
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline 		There are contradictory messages in this thread. There are claims that it is not OK to land beyond the range of covering air because it is a gamey move, and also claims that it is risky move, can be countered, and is therefore not gamey.

I agree with Tom Hunter that there is a good countermove for every move in the game. Sure the Japanese player knows the initial Allied dispositions and thus how to take advantage of it, but the Allied player also knows the initial dispositions of the Japanese forces. As an Allied player I take advantage of that knowledge and punish the Japanese player if they make ANY landings in the central Pacific during week 1. So I really don't want any Japanese opening move to be considered a gamey move, and especially landings beyond the range of covering air! If you think you can invade both Baker and Canton island during week 1--go for it. Even if a landing succeeds, the Japanese perimeter gets more vulnerable as it grows.

And if I am the Japanese player I want the freedom to decide what risks I'm willing to run during Week 1. I always assume my opponent is competent and can figure out the same countermoves to make me pay for risky moves I choose to execute.

Moreover, the same policy regarding landings beyond the range of covering air should apply to the Allied player. In my current game I'm landing on Marcus Island in Feb 42, having designed a series of moves to make certain the KB is nowhere in the region. The recon was conducted by subs and PBY's to make sure the island hadn't been reinforced. I am perfectly aware of the risks I'm running operating at the very edge of my air cover--and such a move should not be considered gamey under any circumstances. So the bottom line is that all is fair in war and good wargames. (Although I will admit that some of the threads I'm reading concerning land combat and paratroops borders on gamey simply because the LCU system appears broken and needs substantial improvements).

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 10
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 12:13:51 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Sorry Mogami, but you're calling the fast assault on these islands gamey, cause the IJ player knows how weak they are, yet you're counting Japanese Divisions in your allied shemes and take the arrival date of the B-29 into account in your japanese shemes. Since windsight works both sides, both sides should put it to use, and IMO no side is better off here IMO.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 11
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 1:02:15 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Sorry Mogami, but you're calling the fast assault on these islands gamey, cause the IJ player knows how weak they are, yet you're counting Japanese Divisions in your allied shemes and take the arrival date of the B-29 into account in your japanese shemes. Since windsight works both sides, both sides should put it to use, and IMO no side is better off here IMO.


Hi,

while you're right when you state that hindsight works for both sides, it's not correct to say that no side is better off. The problem is that Japan because it is on the offensive in Dec 41 may gain much more from hindsight because the Japanese player knows the exact locations of Allied forces. At start the Allies simply have not the forces available to counter the Japanese moves (at least if the Japanese player properly employs his forces). But there is no way to circumvent hindsight, thus for me Canton, Palmyra etc. are still valid targets for the Japanese because it would be not appropiate to force the Japanese player to refrain from attacking certain targets simply because he knows that they're only weakly occupied at start (but I would count it gamey if the Japanese player attacks locations with his Base Force/Engineer units or other units with no real combat strenght simply because he knows that they're unoccupied at start; in this cases he should at least send a NLF for game's sake).

K

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 12
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 1:33:25 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Hi,
I agree in principal that those moves that you mentioned are gamey in nature. Yet I would like to state that this information (i.e which island is not or only lightly defended) is IMO much easier to obtain before the war than the number of IJ Divisions which are available for operations in the SRA or the properties/arrival date of the B-29, just to mention two extreme examples.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 13
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 1:43:58 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I know the number and where abouts of all Japanese units but I require the game to locate them before I start planning action. I think I would have a pretty good idea when one of my aircraft would enter production.

Again I am stating 2 different atitudes.
Against the AI it is exploitive to move outside aircover and support.
Against a human it is up to him to make it incorrect. (I think both players should be allowed to play as risky as they want. The AI will not understand or counter such action. A human can)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 14
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 1:49:24 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I think I would have a pretty good idea when one of my aircraft would enter production.


I meant that playing as the japanese you make your defensive judgements based on the capabilities of a yet to be built plane

quote:


Against a human it is up to him to make it incorrect. (I think both players should be allowed to play as risky as they want. The AI will not understand or counter such action. A human can)


We agree on that.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 15
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 1:59:22 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, If I was basing my Japanese plans on B-29 I would not begin setting up the island in early 1942 when supply is an issue. I send my fisrt defensive units to bases in Central Pacific in Dec 1941.
As Japan I operate as if Allied invasions are coming at that moment.

(I also do Allied defense this way. I set up West Coast then PH area then move out from there. )

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/2/2005 6:59:37 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 16
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 2:01:27 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Sorry, I re-read your post and obviously mis-read it.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 17
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 5:21:13 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		I look at it from the standpoint of in a PBEM anything you don't agree to before starting the game is fair game if the system supports it. Life gets too complicated if you start having to haggle about stuff after the game has already started.

Canton is a perfectly valid target, just as Midway and Johnson and Palmyra are ... any base that was built up and capable of being part of the ferry link between PH and Noumea/Efate is something that Japan should think about knocking out.

As to being able to support them, as long as KB exists and the Yanks don't have 4 CV's yet, they are supportable. As to using the first turn super move to your advantage to get stuff moving there, The Allies have a CA sitting at Canton to prevent a landing should they choose to. Johnson has another CA. A 3rd CA sits north of Efate to charge to Rabaul. To add to this, there are two CV fleets with plenty of firepower already at sea with a 2-3 turn move advantage over KB. There are CL's in NZ that can be on their way to Noumea very quickly and another CL at PM for Rabaul defence.

If the Allies choose to *not* protect their assets, all the more power to Japan. Each side has equipment and is not helpless. Don't cry about spilt milk, last I checked this was a war. Units without supply fight at 25% effectiveness so if you don't feed them, they are pushovers. Lets not invent excuses for the poor Allies to sit back and cower until 1943.

As to Ron's classic arguement about southern islands being missing, well if they were there, they'd be on my hit list too

Anything that delays the Yanks getting west of PH is worth it's weight in gold. Every ship you kill is one more ship not murdering your aircraft once they upgrade their AA.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 18
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 8:16:57 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		i won't use the super initial hyperspace move to land there but certainly saw those islands as valid targets once the game is started.

In real world, Japanese only landed the first day in Khota Bharu and maybe Batan Island as in the game but also on all Thailand ports (not in the game). Landings in Wake, Legaspi, Vigan, Aparri and Guam were 2 days after (on the 10th but on the other side of the Time Line).

They were not sailing everywhere because all Allied airmen have taken the day off. The only Japanese landing force in enemy country was at Khota Bharu and was seen two days before and followed the next day (Japanese CAP shot a Catalina getting too close). The British only kept quiet because there was the possibility that Japan will only land in Thailand.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 19
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 8:39:16 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

i won't use the super initial hyperspace move to land there but certainly saw those islands as valid targets once the game is started.


You can't make Canton ... it will get you close, but not landing. There is a little matter of a CA sitting there are will eat you if you try and land on turn 1. It's just like Midway, you can get close, but not land there.

The danger with all of these is the fuel to get home better be on it's way too as *very* few ships have the range to get there and back home.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 20
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 10:04:38 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Wow. Sounds like some of y'all are playing some real pests.

I guess I should commend our PBEM opponents then. Knavey and I, are playing as a team against LtFighter/KBullard in one game, and against U2 in another.

(* commenations to KBullard/LtFighter/U2 *)

Even tho our "house rules" are that, "there are no house rules", I haven't seen anything that I would consider gamey.

That being said, in our games, reinforcing Midway, and the chain to Oz, were our priorty early on. If they go for them now, well, my response would be, "Good luck with that!"

But in our own experience, the best way to curb agression IJN player, is bloody his nose at some of those bases he's trying to take. I'm not talking about seeking a decicive battle early on (that's a good way to get your ass handed to you, quite decicively as an Allied player!). But just to where you get a good punch in, and run away like KB is after you (because it is!).

Only highest marks and regard to U2, and I don't think he'll mind if I use an example here. I'm not trying to brag like, "You suck dude!"; because as you'll see, the engagements are quite marginal. It's just to illustrate my point.

U2 came out of the gate "quite agressive" in my opinion. Nothing gamey like seizing Noumea on turn 3 or anything (altho we would have called this acceptable, if not annoying). But Knavey and I were both surprised to see string of bases along North New Guinea falling like dominos within the first week.

Solution : We deployed about 4 CLs to squat on the next string of bases (appearntly) on the adgenda. I even turned off their search planes, so as not to spot him early and give away our ruse. And as predictated, 2 of our CLs each engaged a pair of tranports, and the APs and their SLNFs ended up making thier landings about 30 miles offshore. About the same time he was landing (escorted) at Davo. The weather was good (as in bad, Tstorms), so I sprinted Prince of Wales and few pals to engage his landing there. We damaged a pair of CAs and sank 2 DDs, and our cost, damaged Houston and sunk DD. But, we broke thru and sank another 3 trasports. We then promptly got the h_ll outta Dodge.

Did we stop the landings at Davo? Nope. Did we actually sink much along NG or Davo? Nope. But you know what? We're seeing bigger TFs from him now (which are much easier to keep track of), and they're all escorted, because you just never know where PoW will show up next (*grin*). It ties down ships and slows him down. In the meantime, since his guys actually -do- have to stick together (or we -will- hit him in a softspot), it gives us time to get people to where they need to be, and plan our own ops. We didn't send our fleets in looking for a big victory. We went in when the situation was fairly even or our advantage, gave a good accounting, then cashed out and walked away from the table.

I don't care if we only damage stuff (as long as our stuff is only damaged). If a capital ship has 35 Sys Dmg, it's out of game for 6 months. As the Allies, we can afford that. Japan can't.

Don't go looking for the big fight as Allies. You'll lose. But take the punch when there's an opening, and it'll slow down Japan enough to buy you the time you need.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 2/2/2005 3:11:04 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 21
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 10:24:19 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

I even turned off their search planes, so as not to spot him early and give away our ruse.


Naughty!

I like it!

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 22
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/2/2005 10:34:12 PM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		In my game with Freeboy I took Palmyra early (Not using the turn one thingmagig), landed there with some troops and a base force, transported some Bettys there and gave him grief for a while. He then planted some B17s on Johnston and proceeded to plaster Palmyra.
Not gamey IMHO, it has its risk, and my invasion TF could have been creamed. In exchange, I did mess up his Oz reinforcement plans.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 23
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/3/2005 12:13:11 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Feinder those are excellent example of how to run the Allies early in war.
If you show the Japanese player that you will punish him for improper play he will reform. (Or keep losing material)
If you fight 1 surface battle in SRA with major ships you don't have to fight another because now the japanese player will slow down.
If you let them get away with 2 AP and a PC taking bases then that is what they will do.
Sink a few of these TF and the entire program slows down. Then with this extra time you prepare a real show stopper somewhere.
The Allies have to do several things.
1. Keep the Japanese out of rear areas before May 1942
2. Get the Japanese engaged in a long battle on the fringe After May 1942 (this battle will eventually evolve into the first Allied offensive)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 24
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/3/2005 1:04:48 AM   
adsoul


Posts: 159
Joined: 6/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Feinder those are excellent example of how to run the Allies early in war.
If you show the Japanese player that you will punish him for improper play he will reform. (Or keep losing material)
If you fight 1 surface battle in SRA with major ships you don't have to fight another because now the japanese player will slow down.
If you let them get away with 2 AP and a PC taking bases then that is what they will do.
Sink a few of these TF and the entire program slows down. Then with this extra time you prepare a real show stopper somewhere.
The Allies have to do several things.
1. Keep the Japanese out of rear areas before May 1942
2. Get the Japanese engaged in a long battle on the fringe After May 1942 (this battle will eventually evolve into the first Allied offensive)



Mogami, I like very much the point 2 'cause it's perfect for my PBEM game I just can't wait for the time that it "will eventually evolve into the first Allied offensive"

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 25
RE: Historical opinion needed - PBEM question - 2/3/2005 6:50:55 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Yes I hate the period from Dec 41 to 42. I hate it from both sides. As Japan I am just grinding away at SRA and as Allies I am just being ground away in SRA.
After May however it gets to be fun.
As Japan I am looking for a fight I can win.
As Allies I am looking for a fight I can win.


As Allies I have 6 CV with full airgroups. New fighters, upgraded AA (upgraded escorts)
LCU all preped and refitted and rested. LBA units trained and full strength.

(As Japan I am looking for where the enemy placed all this stuff and whether or not I can get at it)

After May 1942 it is like two locomotives on the same track going full speed in opposite directions about to collide. Not like the first 6 months where it is a Mack truck going after a puppy in the road.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/2/2005 11:51:46 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to adsoul)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Historical opinion needed - PBEM question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.672