RE: My dear general.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports



Message


Canoerebel -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 12:58:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

Historiker, do you really think John's suffering unfairly to LBA in India? He has hundreds of mostly unguarded merchant ships within a hex to about six hexes of hundreds of highly experienced bombers. In this situation in real life, the Japanese transports would be shredded, I think. So, I believe these results are plausible, and that John should have known that if he moved into close range of Allied LBA and failed to adequately guard his ships he would take fearful losses.

In difference to Nemo, I see this as exploiting the game.
Its nothing to complain about when your experienced bombers devastade his fleet - but IMO, it should be in an acceptable way. For me, using naval search isn't acceptable, but everyone may regard that his way.

If your bombers are that experienced, what's the problem with unleashing them with the usual naval strike mission?
On the other hand, most games have a house rule regarding the altitude 4Es have to fly doing naval attack. This rule can easily be bypassed by letting them fly naval search with lower altitude. I don't know about how you handle this in your game...

Anyway: I never try to forget that its just a game and that both sides should enjoy it...


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I have my bombers in India set for Naval Strike and 10% Naval Search. My experience with the game is that this setting increases the chances that my bombers will find and then sortie against enemy ships. I had no idea the Naval Search missions would be so effective at also scoring hits, but I think this is primarily due to John's failure to adquately provide for the defense of his ships. My bombers are flying Naval Strike missions every turn too. The damage he has suffered is totally within the bounds of reason given his proximity to 88% Experience Allied bombers (the range of experience is probably 70% to 95%). He stood the KB off about ten hexes because he lost an air battle early in the invasion and is afraid he doesn't have enought CAP. Now his unprotected transports are getting a battering. That's not exploiting the game.




USSAmerica -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 1:03:18 PM)

I have no first hand experience with the Naval Search vs. CAP issue, yet, but from what I've read, John is under the impression that Naval Search is not affected by CAP. Does anyone know for sure which is true?




vettim89 -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 1:08:47 PM)

There is a saying: perception is reality in the eyes of the perceiver. To put that in WITP terms, an exploit is only an exploit if you are the one suffering the effects of it. John is complaining about how many ships have been hit by NavSearch yet I have not heard Dan complain about his subs being sunk by masses of Army Bombers on NavSearch. I could expand the list but I don't think it is necessary. John, is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I agree with Nemo that he failed to grasp the enormity of the situation when Dan invaded Iwo Jima and Sakalin Island. Now the fox is in the hen house while the dog is out hunting rabbits.

John's current operation is more a statement of his play style more than anything else. He has a very hard time planning defensive operations. He is an offensively minded player that is in a defensive point of his game. I realize that with the pilot bug and other warts in WITP that it is very hard for the Japanese this late in the game. Still I think John could have done more.

In my game I have the opposite problem, I am a defensively minded player that is now in the offensive phase of my game as Allies in late 1943. I am having a very hard time keeping up the offensive tempo because I look at every base I take as vulnerable. I reinforce and build defenses before moving on. I know this is giving my opponent time to regroup but I just can't get my mindset changed no matter how hard I try.





Historiker -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 1:16:52 PM)

quote:


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.




Kereguelen -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 1:25:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I have no first hand experience with the Naval Search vs. CAP issue, yet, but from what I've read, John is under the impression that Naval Search is not affected by CAP. Does anyone know for sure which is true?


(1) Naval search (as well as recon and transport) missions are affected by CAP. You just don't see it because there are no animations for it. But CAP is (always was) less efficient against small strikes in WITP.

(2) This issue is not 4E-bomber related. Every high-experience bomber would give similar results (that is: use of high-experience B-25's or Betties would give similar results if in range). But 4E-bombers have better range and higher bombloads, of course.

(3) Basically same thing as with land based bombers on ASW or Naval Search. High XP makes them deadly against subs in WITP.

(4) Works out different (much better) in the AE.




Canoerebel -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 1:56:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.


My bomber groups are always set on 10% naval search; none are or ever have been set higher. If in his AAR John is implying or giving the impression that my bombers are set higher, please let him know that isn't the case.




BLurking -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 2:14:23 PM)

Everybody's guessing here - why not just post the combat and operation reports?

If you're using 10% naval search, I don't see a problem in the least. Limiting 4E bombers to a purely strategic role would be ridiculous.

[edit] Whoops - should be more careful with my wording. I'm not doubting your word, it's just a lot of speculation going on based on verbal descriptions of the turn action. Combat and Operation reports might clear that up, so at least the discussion is based on facts not speculation.




Canoerebel -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 2:21:17 PM)

I can't imagine anybody would doubt my word about this, but just in case anybody does wonder, here's an offer.  John can send any (or all) of my turn files over the past seven game days to anyone of his choosing and I'll then send that person my password.  They can open the file and check naval settings and confirm that they are all at 10% Naval Search.  Since the turn files are coming from John and will come from several days back, there won't be any questions of my having tampered with them after the fact.




vettim89 -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 2:32:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:


How in the world am I exploiting the game?

I don't want to accuse you of anything! I just know what I read in both AARs. According to this, it seemed that you are only doing Naval Search missions.


My bomber groups are always set on 10% naval search; none are or ever have been set higher. If in his AAR John is implying or giving the impression that my bombers are set higher, please let him know that isn't the case.



You need to communicate this to John then because the general impression is that they are set above that producing high hit rates.

As to the exploit thing, I have had enough. I have refrained from speaking my true feelings but this ongoing discussion in both AAR's and the War Room has been eating at me for two days now.

John has:

* Spent enormous amounts of energy putting Carrier units in China on "training" missions. He has used ground attack missions to make fighter groups with high EXP to use for CAP and Escort missions. He has used ground attack missions to make torpedo bombers groups have high EXP for NavAttack. I know this is typical Japanese Fanboyism, but it is still an exploit

* Stripped most if not all of his DB's off his carriers and replaced them with TB (which, BTW, are overrated in the game). Again, typical JFB activity but still an exploit (see the AE threads regarding the truth about how limited the Japanese CV's were in terms of supporting high numbers of TB's)

* Put hundreds of Army bombers on NavSearch/ASW to destroy Allied submarines.

* Stripped all his strike aircraft off his CV's to create a CAP trap

WITP has a lot of bad design that allows players to do things that were not possible in RL. John has used every one of those loopholes to his advantage throughout the game. Dan, to his credit, has complained very little. Now John has started this Indian misadventure and it is not going his way. Since it started he has accused Dan of cheating/spying and now exploiting the NavSearch routine. Odd, when Dan's carrier strike aircraft were wiped out by John's CAP trap off Hokkaido, I seem to recall most of Dan's energy was focused on getting his air groups rebuilt not whining about John's tactics.

Dan, you have played a brilliant game. You have showed both perseverance during some very dark times and remarkable resiliency. You invasion of Hokkaido and Salkilin late in 1943 goes right up there with PZB's capture of Karachi in my mind as far as WITP bold moves. You have been "gamed" by John throughout this game, yet, have done little complaining. I salute you[&o]




Nemo121 -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 2:34:50 PM)

Guys, let's call a spade a spade. John DOES have a history of crying wolf when things don't go his way. It is unfortunate and I think it is understandable given some other stressors BUT even if Canoerebel had his bombers on 100% naval search it'd be entirely fine. John can't ask for rule changes just because he is unwilling or unable to enact the necessary countermeasures.


OTOH if it would settle this I'll put myself forward as someone who would be prepared to look at the two filesets. I don't doubt Canoerebel but I think that this whole calling his play into question is ridiculous and I'd like to settle it as quickly as possible as I think he deserves better.




Canoerebel -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 2:50:24 PM)

My email to John this a.m.: 

Based upon additional comments in my AAR, it seems that many people are under the impression that my Nav Search was set higher than 10%.  I've offered to allow you to send whatever files you wish to anyone of your choosing; I'll then send that person my password and they can check the files going back as far as you wish.  Since the files will be coming from you, there can be no question of my having tampered with them.  Nemo has offered to serve in this capacity, but you can choose whoever you wish.  It might be best to choose somebody that has this version loaded - I think Q-Ball, Miller, and BigB would be obvious candidates.  You are also welcome to send them those older files to check that I had my present garrison in India long, long before you first considered invading - I think they were there before July '44, but select one file from each month - say May, June, July '44 - and that person can verify that my defenses that were in place on your D-Day have been in place since way back in late spring or early summer.





Q-Ball -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 2:51:41 PM)

Everyone knows John and I are partners on a 2x2, and I think he's a fine chap overall. My two cents, of all the alleged exploits or gaminess mentioned here, 4E Nav Search, deception in China, pilot training, etc.....I think almost all of it is within acceptable conduct. Possible exception MIGHT be switching out CV airgroups, but other than that I haven't heard anything that to me would be a problem.

It's a game, and it's usually not a good thing when high emotion comes into the game, but I think both of you have played fair and square.





Canoerebel -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 3:08:00 PM)

Well said, Q-Ball.  I've said once before that John is almost like a brother now, and the intensity is almost like brotherly competition.  Alot goes into a game, so tensions are high, but while I'm intense with my brother, it doesn't change the fact that he's my brother and a good man.

I've had a problems with a few things John has done in the game:  His misleading statement early in the game about China (referenced on the previous page of this AAR), although this could fall within the defination of psych-ops; the time he trapped all my merchant ships in a corner of the map and bombed them unmercifully (in real life, those merchants would have just proceeded further south), but getting them stuck there was my own fault, so I never complained to John;  and the time he swapped all his Nav fighters for some other kind of fighter, sent me the turn, and then asked for a redo when he learned through his AAR that those fighters might not even fly (I felt that once he sent the turn it should've been a done deal, but I ultimately agreed to let him go back a few turns and start over).

I don't mind John pulling troops out of China, swapping out strike aircraft for fighters (the massive CAP trap he set for me near Hokkaido), swapping out dive bombers for torpedo bombers, using LBA on ASW search and destroy missions, allowing small garrisons to remain in DEI and Philippines so that he could train pilots, or any other number of strategems.  Most or all of these, I felt, fell within the area of "what if."  The Japs didn't try them in real life, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have.  It's a game, so it's all about the challenge of using assets to try to devise a way to defeat your enemy.

(I did mind when there were questions about me having foreknowlege of John's invasion, but I think that was put to rest early on).




vettim89 -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 3:30:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Well said, Q-Ball.  I've said once before that John is almost like a brother now, and the intensity is almost like brotherly competition.  Alot goes into a game, so tensions are high, but while I'm intense with my brother, it doesn't change the fact that he's my brother and a good man.

I've had a problems with a few things John has done in the game:  His misleading statement early in the game about China (referenced on the previous page of this AAR), although this could fall within the defination of psych-ops; the time he trapped all my merchant ships in a corner of the map and bombed them unmercifully (in real life, those merchants would have just proceeded further south), but getting them stuck there was my own fault, so I never complained to John;  and the time he swapped all his Nav fighters for some other kind of fighter, sent me the turn, and then asked for a redo when he learned through his AAR that those fighters might not even fly (I felt that once he sent the turn it should've been a done deal, but I ultimately agreed to let him go back a few turns and start over).

I don't mind John pulling troops out of China, swapping out strike aircraft for fighters (the massive CAP trap he set for me near Hokkaido), swapping out dive bombers for torpedo bombers, using LBA on ASW search and destroy missions, allowing small garrisons to remain in DEI and Philippines so that he could train pilots, or any other number of strategems.  Most or all of these, I felt, fell within the area of "what if."  The Japs didn't try them in real life, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have.  It's a game, so it's all about the challenge of using assets to try to devise a way to defeat your enemy.

(I did mind when there were questions about me having foreknowlege of John's invasion, but I think that was put to rest early on).


I know John is going through hell right now and that is probably affecting his mood. My point was not about exploits vs non-exploits but that John has a very myopic view of what is and is not gamey. I know the things I listed in my previous post are considered normal strategies for WITP. That doesn't mean they are not exploiting the game system.

My point is that John has no problem screaming about things being overstated or unrealistic when it is going against him but often gloats when the shoe is on the other foot. I don't think this breaks operational security but those that read both AAR's know John has been bragging some time about how many subs his has sunk with Helens and other Army bombers on NavSearch and ASW patrol. Odd, the same game routine that has given him so much success against subs is now wrecking his merchant fleet. Before it was a "MUWHAHAHAH Moment", now it is, "OMG, this game is so messed up, this is so unrealistic, this is so unfair".





Historiker -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 3:37:00 PM)

quote:

I can't imagine anybody would doubt my word about this, but just in case anybody does wonder, here's an offer. John can send any (or all) of my turn files over the past seven game days to anyone of his choosing and I'll then send that person my password. They can open the file and check naval settings and confirm that they are all at 10% Naval Search. Since the turn files are coming from John and will come from several days back, there won't be any questions of my having tampered with them after the fact.

I really doubt that this is needed...




crsutton -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 5:31:17 PM)

I really have enjoyed this AAR both from your angle and from John's.

This little Indian adventure is just icing on the cake for me as it is hard to imagine such a major Japanese attack so late in the the game.

I have no complaints with your managment of the Allies. You really have done a great job. One thing though. This AAR has tought me that the Japanese carrier force must be pursued and dealt with as soon as the Allies have sufficient carrier force themselves. Even the loss of half of his carriers would have made any attack such as this impossible. It really does not matter if the Allies take large losses themselves, the Japanese carrier foce has to be hunted down without remorse. Until they are suppressed, a massive IJN carrier force in being creates too much uncertainity.

Keep up the good work.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 5:53:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwinkle, very well said.  I agree, although the root of the problem in my opinion is that he should have hit Sikhalin Island with everything he had in early 1944.  Sikhalin has always been the real threat to Jap welfare, and early in '44 I was so weak that John had a decent chance of hurting me badly.  Not only were my ground forces wrecked, my ships were out of fuel, I was low on supplies, and I had a tremendously long and vulnerable supply line.  John didn't know my problems, of course, but he did know his - an Allied Sikhalin Island would be murder to the Japs.

At the current rate the Allies wouldn't achieve auto-victory until late winter or spring.  I'm at 1.40 to 1, and probably will be about 1.60 to one on New Years Day barring some calamitous one-sided victory that either increases or decreases that ratio.


I haven't played PBEM into 1945 and it's years since I read the manual. Does the engine do auto-victory checks in real-time after 1/1/1945, only periodically on the first of the months, or does it do one, last check on 1/1/1945 and then leave it to VP totals to determine the winner?

I agree with the hindsight that he should have defended/counter-attacked the North. Like most others I'm reading both AARs, so I'll just say that both of you are in for some surprises when it's all over and you read "history" to your grandkids. [;)]

I will say this though, and I'd say the same to him. Both of you seem, at least outwardly, to sometimes underestimate the game's FOW formulae, especially in air combat results. VPs don't lie, but many of the successes you both assume happened, didn't.

The second thing is more amateur shrink-ish. I think--just maybe--that the reason he didn't "go North" on you was becasue it would have been too pedestrian. He likes the bold, brilliant stroke. (Witness this week.) His enthusiasms, as well as disappointments, spike and recede. He, for example, spent lots of time and resources on Oz, and for what? You are more plodding, more methodical, more able to exploit past success in a careful manner. You aren't on Formosa yet, rolling dice. He would be. This difference in approach has been one of the most interesting aspects of these AARs for me. It's Mac vs. Nimitz.




Canoerebel -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 5:55:24 PM)

After detailing to John earlier today that I have (and have always had) my bombers set at 10% Naval Search, he writes this in his most recent email:  "Well--you changed your settings for this turn.  Actual real strikes came in.  I can handle that so much better then the other.  Only 22 hits this turn."

My reply:   "John, you're wrong every time you accuse me of something.  I've told you already that my settings have been Naval Strike with 10% Naval Search from the beginning and they remain so this turn. I have not touched the settings.  I've had real strikes every turn (your CVEs, BBs and a number of transports have fallen victim to them; but cloud cover has kept them from flying in large numbers up to now, I guess."

So now he doesn't believe my word on this, and he has also declined my offer to let a neutral party review the file.  I think I'm going to give him my password and let him see for himself.  I'm pretty  hacked off.  First he questioned my honesty, now he doubts the truth of what I've told him.





crsutton -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 6:04:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

After detailing to John earlier today that I have (and have always had) my bombers set at 10% Naval Search, he writes this in his most recent email:  "Well--you changed your settings for this turn.  Actual real strikes came in.  I can handle that so much better then the other.  Only 22 hits this turn."

My reply:   "John, you're wrong every time you accuse me of something.  I've told you already that my settings have been Naval Strike with 10% Naval Search from the beginning and they remain so this turn. I have not touched the settings.  I've had real strikes every turn (your CVEs, BBs and a number of transports have fallen victim to them; but cloud cover has kept them from flying in large numbers up to now, I guess."

So now he doesn't believe my word on this, and he has also declined my offer to let a neutral party review the file.  I think I'm going to give him my password and let him see for himself.  I'm pretty  hacked off.  First he questioned my honesty, now he doubts the truth of what I've told him.




Cannonrebel,

You just have to cut him some slack here. He tends to jump to quick conclusions and then feels bad about it later. It is just his way.

I know nothing about the merits of his legal issue and would not venture to say anything about it, but it is apparent that the pressure he is under is tremendous. I doubt that I could function in a gaming sense if I were under the same pressure. Who here could?




FeurerKrieg -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 6:06:18 PM)

I wouldn't send your password. Just play the game out and let him whine, vent or whatever. I think all the folks who read both sides know what to believe.

The game probably won't last much longer anyways given his India adventure and your soon-to-be presence on Taiwan.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: My dear general.... (3/13/2009 6:06:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Bullwinkle - If you play the game with VPs in mind then your point has some merit... although even then I think this Indian adventure is misjudged... but I tend to discount VPs. They are a crude measure which encourages less than ideal strategic decision-making. You should want to take Singapore because it is a developed port with 2 different routes of exploitation along SLOCs NOT because it will give you x hundred VPs. Different strokes for different folks though.


Fair enough. We disagree on VPs. You can play the game as a strategic simulator as well as a game.

But the question is then, what SHOULD he be doing at this point, with his assets, in the face of Dan's position? The RL Japanese would have thrown the remnants of the IJN at Iwo and died. Should he have done that, shook Dan's hand, and retired to read AARs? He screwed up badly by allowing Sakhalin, but it's spilled milk.

It's nice to "shape" campaigns and theaters--I've read those staff manuals too--but he has few tools. The hour is late. What should he be doing now--if VPs are not a consideration?




Canoerebel -> And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 7:31:49 PM)

11/9/44
 
India on Land:  The Japs took the interior city 120 miles north of Trivandrum and are on the move up several roads.  I expect John to use paratroops over the next day or two (and all interior cities and a few coastal cities are vacant, so they'll do the job for him).  I still expect John to gobble up most of interior India along with some of the coastal towns like Madras, Pangim, Bangalore, and Viz.   The more I look at this, however, the more it appears to be what I said earlier - like marbles rolling around in an empty metal bucket making alot of noise.  John has a pretty long way to go before he gets anywhere, Allied troops are already arriving in NE India, John doesn't have enough to really take anything the Allies defend, and how is he going to garrison what he does take?  He'll either be spread awfully thin or he'll have just one or two powerful spearheads.  He's going to be in big trouble.

India in the Air:  Allied bombers did a good day's work.  Today, Trivandrum had clear weather, so naval strike missions flew and most of the damage came in that form rather than from naval search missions.  John had 20-30 transports hit and BB Hiei took two more hits, though I doubt they did much.  The Allies have had total air supremacy from the get-go and it will just get worse for the Japs.

India at Sea:  Allied subs made their presence known, damaging or sinking a few AKs and an AO.  I have about ten operation out of Colombo now, and a big congregation waiting between Sabang and the map edge to greet John's ships when they retire.  Three Allied carrier TFs met at Singapore, refueled, and will head to Sabang before receiving further orders.  This group includes American carriers Bennington and Ticonderago, four or five British fleet carriers and CVL Hermes, and three RN CVEs.  They wil not stick there nose out too far unless I an opportunity arises.  The American fleet carriers are nearing Aparri and will steam through the narrow channel tomorrow (if John fills it with mines we'll see what happens; I've decided to chance this passage unscouted - except by subs - in the name of haste).  A few Jap LBA Judys sortied and these carriers put up 360 Hellcats.  Their strike planes finished off CA Aoba at San Fernando, PI.

China: D-Day at Pescadores found a very week garrison.  The Allies landed 100 AV and will shock attack tomorrow.  D-Day at Foochow was yesterday, but it was just a small Indian unit scouting the terrain.  Then an American armored unit rolled overland into the area.  The combined units withstood a very weak Jap attack (most of John's units at Foochow are exhausted from recent defeats).  More units are on the march from Amoy but it will take four more days.  Meanwhile, transports are loading with troops to hit the beaches at Woochow.  D-Day is no more than five days away.  The Japanese position in China is in utter disaray.

Operation Neptune:  The American CVEs are turning back for Iwo Jima.  The reinforcement convoys from Midway are nearing the halfway point to Iwo.  The Formosa invasion forces will begin loading in three or four days; embarkation should be in a week; D-Day should be in two weeks.

SWPac: Fiji Brigade landed at unoccupied Nandi, took the base, and is heading overland to Suva.

Jap Trap/Diversion?:  I have given much more thought to what John is doing in India.  He didn't bring enough to really accomplish anything lasting; just enough to create a heck of alot of noise for awhile.  I am concerned about him mining channels, but that is a manageable risk.  I think the trap is that he want incite a big carrier battle in the open ocean and that he's swapped out all of his dive bombers for torpedo bombers.  He has mentioned this before in various threads in the forums, and he's certainly had time to orchestrate such a lineup.  So I probably won't give him the satisfaction of meeting in the open sea; I'll tinker around under cover of LBA, which ought to drive him nuts.  (But I will move in if his carriers remain scattered as they are now).

Points:  (A) 80,405 (J) 57,609; Ratio:  1.39 to 1.




Historiker -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 7:55:14 PM)

quote:

John has a pretty long way to go before he gets anywhere, Allied troops are already arriving in NE India, John doesn't have enough to really take anything the Allies defend, and how is he going to garrison what he does take? He'll either be spread awfully thin or he'll have just one or two powerful spearheads. He's going to be in big trouble.

One thing it didn't understand...
Why did he land at a place where your supply centers are as far away as possible? He needs totake Calcutta and/or Karachi (this prefered). This would allow him to feed his troops indepently even if blockaded - which you are already doing.
Landing at Trivandrum makes captureing these important points quite insecure...




Q-Ball -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:10:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

One thing it didn't understand...
Why did he land at a place where your supply centers are as far away as possible? He needs totake Calcutta and/or Karachi (this prefered). This would allow him to feed his troops indepently even if blockaded - which you are already doing.
Landing at Trivandrum makes captureing these important points quite insecure...


Without commenting on any inside knowledge, looking at the map you can't sneak up on a target in the Bay of Bengal. Dan would be able to see an invasion a good week before a landing at Calcutta, plenty of time to make it impossible.

Southern India you can sneak up on by hugging the map edge. Obviously John did that successfully, because Dan didn't see him until the transports were almost ashore.




Nemo121 -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:12:22 PM)

Historiker,

Strategically this is a huge bungle and the people who are applauding John's "audacity" are, IMO, completely missing the point. This is not the "least worst option" and when losing sometimes that's the best you can do ( not always but sometimes ).

Anyways, John has made a huge strategic error here - and a really obvious one - so I think it is little surprise to see that this glaringly obvious strategic error is being accompanied by more subtle operational errors.




Nemo121 -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:17:29 PM)

Q Ball... Ah but it isn't necessary to sneak up on it. Just 2 more days hard sailing would have got him in position to land north of Bombay and really give the Allies a problem with a dual landing ( if he was still wedded to Trivandrum etc ).

Not quickly taking Bombay and basing Bettys there to cut off reinforcements originating from Aden is a major strategic blunder. No ifs ands or buts.




Historiker -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:23:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Q Ball... Ah but it isn't necessary to sneak up on it. Just 2 more days hard sailing would have got him in position to land north of Bombay and really give the Allies a problem with a dual landing ( if he was still wedded to Trivandrum etc ).

Not quickly taking Bombay and basing Bettys there to cut off reinforcements originating from Aden is a major strategic blunder. No ifs ands or buts.

He can also sneak close to the Aden channel up to Karachi. The guns there would cost him a lot, but landing some thousand AV there should capture the city. If he has it once, his troops should at least be able to survive the following month - if not more! An option then might be to bring in fragments of other units and let them rebuild in Karachi. IIRC, the off-map supplies continue to appear even if Karachi is captuered, no?

quote:


Strategically this is a huge bungle and the people who are applauding John's "audacity" are, IMO, completely missing the point. This is not the "least worst option" and when losing sometimes that's the best you can do ( not always but sometimes ).

I know. I haven't followed this AARs for long, but if I understood correctly, Sakkhalin is captuered for about a year now? And I'm pretty sure that allied 4es start from the airfields there to bomb Japans industry every day, right?
If so, I would rather try to recapture it even now. Just captureing one base on Sakkhalin would be better than getting a few unsupplied bases in India without any connection to the rest.




Nemo121 -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:23:57 PM)

Bullwinkle,

He missed the point of decision - Sakhalin - THAT was the point at which he should have risked all and risking all and losing all was justified. Even now though he could mount numerous, cheap, spoiling operations across the map with a view to causing disruption to the allied synchronisation etc.

Multiple smaller operational victories would yield greater strategic benefit in this situation. I believe ( and some might disagree ) that were I in John's position that I would be able to give the Allies quite a few bloody noses and by vigorous action aimed at their SLOCs and the bases along them starve the speartips of sufficient supplies so as to make the number of B-29s available a less than salient point.

B-29s without supplies don't threaten much of anything. As to why I think this... Well, I think the strategic dyscorrelation is more favourable to Japan in this game than it is to the Allies in my game vs Damian and there despite the fact that my navy and air force are completely outmatched ( Damian has at least 50% more first-line fighters on-map than me with equivalent experience levels ) I'm able to advance by playing to my strengths and maintaining a variation of tempo, direction and dys-synchronising enemy responses. I am certain the same could be done in this game to good effect.




Canoerebel -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:27:10 PM)

Well, I agree that had he landed at Mangalore or Pangim (or a base between Karachi and Bombay) I'd be much more worried - the "pucker factor" would have been great.  Both bases are defended, but not nearly strong enough.  By the time John reaches then, they will have been reinforced by units marching overland from Diamond Harbor.  Both will then have AVs of 300, which is okay but not great.  By then, however, I'll probably have an air transport network set up to bring in more troops.

John did a great job sneaking up, and got lucky too.   I've had lots of convoys moving between Ceylon and Australia, but he time a gap perfectly.  John also has done well operationally (except leaving his transports unprotected).  But strategically he couldn't have chosen a worse spot to land for him, or a better one for the Allies.  He's so far from anything but right next to Ceylon, the "big unsinkable carrier."




Nemo121 -> RE: And now, back to the actual war.... (3/13/2009 8:28:08 PM)

Historiker, no, once you capture Karachi the off-map supplies stop appearing. Only on-map supplies appear. The other benefit of taking Karachi or Bombay as a first thrust would be that the next thrust then could orient mainly south-eastward thus preventing dissipation of forces ( as occurred in the John3rd, QBall joint AAR when they landed at Vizgapatam and dissipated their effort into three equal thrusts ).

At present it looks to me like he is in danger of dissipating the force of his landings significantly.


I think Sakhalin fell even more recently than this... Perhaps within the last 6 months of game time...




Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875