RE: Seven Days

RE: Seven Days (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Seven Days (7/13/2010 9:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 Well, Paulus, then one can always reduce the tempo of the advance or focus on training pilots better to reduce loss rates at the sharp edge. In mid-March 1942 my fighter squadrons are beginning to fill nicely with 70 Exp A2A pilots from my reserves and many of my USAAF squadrons have 1/3rd to 1/2 of their pilots with mor than 70 A2A Exp. End result when the Zeroes etc come up against my P40Bs and P40Es they lose somewhere between 2 and 4 to 1 ( in my favour ) on average at that early stage. This is late-44 when things should be even more extremely in the Allied favour. But Canoerebel didn't train sufficiently and so now he pays the price. There's nothing surprising or unfair about that. The reality though is that there are clear player-originated reasons for why things are turning out the way they are on both sides of this game. People can choose not to accept this if they wish but that doesn't alter the reality of the situation. Well taken points but there are also historical reasons why things turn out as they do in a game. Irl distribution of USAAF fighters to the Pacific took a dive in late '44 due to a lack of an effective IJNAF/IJAAF, their limited role against kamis and lack of sufficient basing available in CentPac. Imo distribution to the Pacific would have been more of a priority if raids of the size seen in the aar by IJNAF/IJAAF lba were made and the DEI route chosen. Given the disparity in land mass between the DEI and CentPac routes basing limitations would not have been a concern. As an aside, I find pilot training to be a pita. I suspect Canoerebel does as well.

witpqs -> RE: Seven Days (7/13/2010 9:52:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk Well taken points but there are also historical reasons why things turn out as they do in a game. Irl distribution of USAAF fighters to the Pacific took a dive in late '44 due to a lack of an effective IJNAF/IJAAF, their limited role against kamis and lack of sufficient basing available in CentPac. Imo distribution to the Pacific would have been more of a priority if raids of the size seen in the aar by IJNAF/IJAAF lba were made and the DEI route chosen. Given the disparity in land mass between the DEI and CentPac routes basing limitations would not have been a concern. As an aside, I find pilot training to be a pita. I suspect Canoerebel does as well. I recall reading that some contracts were actually canceled and others reduced because they realized they just wouldn't need all those aircraft...

crsutton -> RE: Seven Days (7/13/2010 11:06:40 PM)
Canoerebel, Is he using kamakazes at all? I would think that would be the most serious threat to your carriers at this stage.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Seven Days (7/13/2010 11:59:14 PM)
quote: As an aside, I find pilot training to be a pita. I suspect Canoerebel does as well. It sure is, but it is our pita. You can play the game without it, but you best hope your opponent does the same. This combined with crappy flack, undersized bases in the Marianas (Tinian a 4, 7 with over stacking even though it bases many, many hundreds of B-29's) and historical aircraft production (but only for the allies, Japanese can produce what they want)makes the game a challenge right into 1945. I guess this was the idea.

Grotius -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 12:48:26 AM)
I certainly agree with Canoe about CV reaction behavior. We should have more control over such a crucial asset. Personally, I find pilot-training to be fun, but I understand why some people don't. John, I agree about flak. Remember, though, that this is scenario 2, which gives Japan more toys. There have been scenario 1 games in which the Allies win quicker than historically.

Alfred -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 1:19:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius I certainly agree with Canoe about CV reaction behavior. We should have more control over such a crucial asset. Everyone already does. Rarely do players who complain about CV reaction post details as to the offending TF's commanding officer. Because die rolls are involved nothing in the game is ever 100% guaranteed but try choosing a TF commander with a lower aggression rating. What happens instead is that players select CV TF commanders with the best available air and aggression ratings in order to improve their air strike power. The side effect of that player choice is a greater propensity for the CV TF so led to react independently. Hence if a player wants to improve the odds of this not happening, they should appoint a commander with a lower aggresion level even if he has a lower air rating than they would normally look for in their CV TF commanders. If a player wants to have the benefits of, say a Halsey commanding their CV TF, then they just have to accept that there are some potential drawbacks. Alfred

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 2:34:21 AM)
Step right up boys! Sign up for the sensible rule that applies air-tight logic! Intuitiveness maximus! That's right - put all common sense aside and just follow me blindly while I lead you down the counter-intuitive path that anybody can rationalize if you give them enough time and beer. You'll have carriers throughout the entire war. Those carriers can stumble across the enemy at any moment. In order to prevent the carriers from reacting and doing really nonsensical manuevers sure to threaten your fleet with self-assured anihilation, you have to PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET! Never - repeat never - put somebody as gifted as a Halsey or Nimitz in command because in this game they do not act sensible. They will react against orders, steam hundreds of miles into the teeth of an overwhelming enemy force, leave behind LRCAP, forsake the escorting combat ships they were ordered to follow, and usually end up demolished. In other words, Gentlemen, your best commanders are your worst commanders. Never put them in command! Instead, you must for the entire war PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET. That way your carrier TFs will behave and not go off on a 200-mile lark into the teeth of an ambush. Oh, these incompetent officers don't know port from starboard and usually forget to launch into the wind and don't know sea room from a ward room, but they are your best choice. That's right. We CANNOT have something as rationale as common sense in the game. We can't just allow commanders to choice their best officers for their most powerful and valuable assets. We simply CANNOT tolerate carriers obeying orders by not reacting when told not to. Instead, let's make the ultimate part of the game random, counter-intuitive, and as silly as we possibly can. [:D]

NormS3 -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 2:37:31 AM)
I take it that it was not a good turn?[:D]

Alfred -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 2:52:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Step right up boys! Sign up for the sensible rule that applies air-tight logic! Intuitiveness maximus! That's right - put all common sense aside and just follow me blindly while I lead you down the counter-intuitive path that anybody can rationalize if you give them enough time and beer. You'll have carriers throughout the entire war. Those carriers can stumble across the enemy at any moment. In order to prevent the carriers from reacting and doing really nonsensical manuevers sure to threaten your fleet with self-assured anihilation, you have to PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET! Never - repeat never - put somebody as gifted as a Halsey or Nimitz in command because in this game they do not act sensible. They will react against orders, steam hundreds of miles into the teeth of an overwhelming enemy force, leave behind LRCAP, forsake the escorting combat ships they were ordered to follow, and usually end up demolished. In other words, Gentlemen, your best commanders are your worst commanders. Never put them in command! Instead, you must for the entire war PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET. That way your carrier TFs will behave and not go off on a 200-mile lark into the teeth of an ambush. Oh, these incompetent officers don't know port from starboard and usually forget to launch into the wind and don't know sea room from a ward room, but they are your best choice. That's right. We CANNOT have something as rationale as common sense in the game. We can't just allow commanders to choice their best officers for their most powerful and valuable assets. We simply CANNOT tolerate carriers obeying orders by not reacting when told not to. Instead, let's make the ultimate part of the game random, counter-intuitive, and as silly as we possibly can. [:D] If this rant is in response to my preceding post then I view it as being very offensive. It does not accurately represent what I posted. Therefore I hope the rant is in response to something which has just occurred in your current game. Alfred

pat.casey -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 2:57:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Step right up boys! Sign up for the sensible rule that applies air-tight logic! Intuitiveness maximus! That's right - put all common sense aside and just follow me blindly while I lead you down the counter-intuitive path that anybody can rationalize if you give them enough time and beer. You'll have carriers throughout the entire war. Those carriers can stumble across the enemy at any moment. In order to prevent the carriers from reacting and doing really nonsensical manuevers sure to threaten your fleet with self-assured anihilation, you have to PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET! Never - repeat never - put somebody as gifted as a Halsey or Nimitz in command because in this game they do not act sensible. They will react against orders, steam hundreds of miles into the teeth of an overwhelming enemy force, leave behind LRCAP, forsake the escorting combat ships they were ordered to follow, and usually end up demolished. In other words, Gentlemen, your best commanders are your worst commanders. Never put them in command! Instead, you must for the entire war PUT BAD OFFICERS IN COMMAND OF YOUR MOST POWERFUL AND VALUABLE ASSET. That way your carrier TFs will behave and not go off on a 200-mile lark into the teeth of an ambush. Oh, these incompetent officers don't know port from starboard and usually forget to launch into the wind and don't know sea room from a ward room, but they are your best choice. That's right. We CANNOT have something as rationale as common sense in the game. We can't just allow commanders to choice their best officers for their most powerful and valuable assets. We simply CANNOT tolerate carriers obeying orders by not reacting when told not to. Instead, let's make the ultimate part of the game random, counter-intuitive, and as silly as we possibly can. [:D] If this rant is in response to my preceding post then I view it as being very offensive. It does not accurately represent what I posted. Therefore I hope the rant is in response to something which has just occurred in your current game. Alfred One man's opinion here, but I don't see anything particularly offensive or ad-hominum in Canorebel's rant. Snide, sure. Sarcastic, sure, but to my eyes not offensive. Of course the opinion of others may vary.

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 3:17:26 AM)
Alfred, that was not aimed at you. Just react in general. While my underlying feelings about the react feature are accurately presented there, I meant it purely in gest and the preposertousness of the thing. Oddly enough - react actually helped me in this battle. Those of you following my AAR know that my carrier strike aircraft were set to range four. Had my carriers not reacted I wouldn't have gotten in the licks in that I did. Whether I benefit or not, though, the react feature is poor and should be eliminated.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 5:18:16 AM)
Regarding the react craziness, I have to agree wholeheartedly. It used to work well in Pacific War, and you would even get surface fleets reacting, which was quite useful in the Solomons for example. I don't see it working nearly as well in AE and also having carriers split up is nuts. Edit: One thing that might help is being able to set up an overarching fleet, with TFs attached, with the TFs set to different roles but moving as a single fleet (or call it a task force with task groups attached). At least that way it would react as a whole. Maybe that's "AE-Part Deaux, the Sequel" territory. Cheers, CC

AcePylut -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 3:04:02 PM)
I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets... but I think the "place" that the carriers react to is partially restricted by threat. Commanders on the scene reacted to the enemy fleets all the time, but they didn't react suicidally. That is really where the issue is... CV's reacting into a spot that "guarantees" termination. Carrier Commanders wouldn't react into range of 10000000 LBA, and neither should they do so in the game, but they would react enough to strike at juicy targets.

pat.casey -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 3:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets... but I think the "place" that the carriers react to is partially restricted by threat.� Commanders on the scene reacted to the enemy fleets all the time, but they didn't react suicidally.� That is really where the issue is...�CV's reacting into a spot that "guarantees" termination.� Carrier Commanders wouldn't react into range of 10000000�LBA, and�neither should they do so in the game, but they would react enough to strike at juicy targets. I think the way the game exists right now though, the game AI (which handles the reaction) isn't bright enough to react reasonably; it is prone to react into LBA range, or away from your transports, or whatever. Given that the AI doesn't react reasonably, many players, myself included, would like to take manual control of the reaction model by setting reaction ranges. Indeed that sure looks like the point of that feature. The concern I at least have though is that, even if you set the reaction range, your carriers still react on their own into silly places and get killed. Given that carriers are true capital ships, the loss of even a few carriers can have a crippling impact a player. From where I sit, this looks like a game bug, specifically the reaction range isn't being honored.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 3:19:51 PM)
quote: I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets. If this is "react against orders" I disagree. The best commanders should be able to stick to their orders and plans. Don't react, means don't react. Stay put. Have any of the developers chimed in and said if this is a feature or a bug?

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 3:22:41 PM)
The problem is that the react feature takes control away from the CinC and there's no way of coding a react feature that doesn't do dumb stuff that the CinC would never do. The CinC wants to create elaborate plans around his carriers - they may be protecting amphibious ships or transports; their own defense may be bolstered by LBA or combat TFs; and they may be close to areas of grave risk that no rational person would send them to. But the react feature doesn't take these factors into consideration and I don't think there's any way of coding it so that it would. The react-despite-orders-not-to feature is a guaranteed way of introducing mayhem and quite often lunacy into the game. Some might argue uncertainty is a virtue, but not when it involves the most important aspect of the game (after all, this is mainly an ocean war and carriers are the titans of the sea). Since this game allows players to micromanage nearly everything, leaving the single most important aspect of the game totally out of their control doesn't make sense.

AcePylut -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:20:42 PM)
Good points... I think that a "do not react" setting should have some chance of react, based on Commander's aggressivenessrating... And in viewing the "react range" setting, that should be the "distance" that a fleet would react, but no further. Making that react range work properly would be the solution imho. You'd have the TF commanders "on the spot" reacting, but you, the CINC, have some control over how far they react, so that you can keep them out of range of LBA. Best of both worlds imho - if you don't want your fleet reacting, set the reaction range to 0, and the fleet will "react" but not "react" anywhere. If you want your commander to have a little leeway to react (i.e. allow the US CV's to 'react' into their aircraft's torpedo range) but not to get into trouble (i.e. end up 40 nm from a Jap base with 1000 LBA), you have that power also. Ok, I don't want to hijack this great AAR... so that's my 2 cents on a solution - which of course is subject to change as I think about it more.

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets. If this is "react against orders" I disagree. The best commanders should be able to stick to their orders and plans. Don't react, means don't react. Stay put. Have any of the developers chimed in and said if this is a feature or a bug? The react-despite-orders-not-to-react has been a plague since Uncommon Valor. Players have regularly griped about it through three generations of war games, but I've never seen a reply by one of the developers (not that they haven't replied - I bet they did early on and then just grew weary of repeating themselves over and over). (I should also add that I really don't know who the developers are - I'm pretty sure The Elf, Terminus, and JWE were involved in AE, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject; I haven't paid very close attention to that, so some of those addressing the point in here may be developers and I wouldn't know it due to my ignorance).

JohnDillworth -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:39:28 PM)
quote: The react-despite-orders-not-to-react has been a plague since Uncommon Valor. Players have regularly griped about it through three generations of war games, but I've never seen a reply by one of the developers (not that they haven't replied - I bet they did early on and then just grew weary of repeating themselves over and over). (I should also add that I really don't know who the developers are - I'm pretty sure The Elf, Terminus, and JWE were involved in AE, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject; I haven't paid very close attention to that, so some of those addressing the point in here may be developers and I wouldn't know it due to my ignorance). Gives me an idea though. I am going to go to the main forums and ask for a "ask the developer thread"

Chickenboy -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:40:19 PM)
CR, et. al. This is all very interesting, but can we please have some BLOOD now, please? Much obliged. [&o]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:43:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: I think there should be a "react" feature to the fleets. If this is "react against orders" I disagree. The best commanders should be able to stick to their orders and plans. Don't react, means don't react. Stay put. Have any of the developers chimed in and said if this is a feature or a bug? I agree. With respect to Alfred, and those who support his "leaders' specs" argument, aggressiveness should only operate within the parameters I, as Ultimate Poobah (FDR?) set. If the TF CO's op ord says "React is Zero hexes; stay with the transports" then darn it, stay with the freakin' transports. I don't care how much you're slavering for a fight. Follow your orders. If I'd have wanted you to exercise the aggressiveness I otherwise selected you for having I'd have spun the React spinner to 6. Inserting a React control and then not honoring it is, to me, unfair to the rational player who expects an interface to do what it's told.

pat.casey -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 If the TF CO's op ord says "React is Zero hexes; stay with the transports" then darn it, stay with the freakin' transports. I don't care how much you're slavering for a fight. Follow your orders. If I'd have wanted you to exercise the aggressiveness I otherwise selected you for having I'd have spun the React spinner to 6. Inserting a React control and then not honoring it is, to me, unfair to the rational player who expects an interface to do what it's told. Well said

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 4:48:54 PM)
PoultryLad ([:)]): Now that's the kind of request any writer can appreciate! Miller should be sending the next turn in a few hours. So here's the situation I expect to develop over the next turn or two: 1. The Japanese have a host of damaged carriers near Hong Kong. I've ordered three or four small combat TFs (mainly DD or DD/CL) to try to intercept east of Hong Kong. (I can't send my carriers, because they are low on aircraft). 2. I've ordered my fleet carriers to head south and my CVE TFs to a point near Samah. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my carriers don't disobey orders, react, and stay close to the massed Japanese air in the area. If my carriers disengage as ordered, the fleet carriers will return to the DEI to refuel, replenish, and pick up the next wave of reinforcements already gathering at Balikpan. 3. The IJN has largely been eliminated in the game. The only real threat left is Japanese LBA. Once my fleet carriers return from the DEI, they may do some hunting. At the very least, I think I need to set up a blockade somewhere in the vicinity of Luzon to prevent (or delay) the Japanese from retrieving islated ground units from the Philippines, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Malaya, etc. 4. The Allies continue to feed reinforcements into China. The situation here looks very promising.

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 5:03:45 PM)
11/19/44 and 11/20/44 A very nice turn for the Allies: Allied Carriers: Successfully disengage as outlined above. Allied Combat TFs: The DD and CL/DD TFs didn't find any damaged IJN carriers, but they did sink the heavily damaged BB Fuso and a few DDs. China: A Chinese army took Liuchow and nearly inihilated the large Japanese garrison in the process. This frees up troops to move on Nanning to the south and Kulako to the east. Vietnam: I was wrong. The British army at Vinh is large enough to handle the garrison there. Back-to-back attacks dropped forts all the way to one. The first attack came off at 3:1. The Brits will need to rest a few days, but the next attack should take this base. That will permit the British army (which includes Chinese and Indian troops) to move on and hit Hanoi from the south while a combined American/Chinese army hits it from the north. I think the combined force will be sufficient to seize Hanoi and, at that point, the road between SEAC and China is open so that British units and their allies can pour into China.

witpqs -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 5:11:11 PM)
IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best. Alfred's point is well taken, but is also only part of the issue. The problem in the game is the limitation of the engine's smarts - Halsey took the whole durn fleet with him - he did not expose his carriers without surface support. In the game, each carrier TF reacts by itself, which basically gives an operating fleet a sort of multiple personality disorder! SCTF, ASW, Sub react all seem to work fine and really add to the games realism. Carrier TF react is a different animal and could use some work. What might help? Maybe if TF's are following another TF, that lead TF should control reaction? Exception: if a SCTF is following a CVTF, the SCTF could still react to surface threats. What do you think?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 5:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel China:� A Chinese army took Liuchow and nearly inihilated the large Japanese garrison in the process.� This frees up troops to move on Nanning to the south and Kulako to the east. [ I saw in my game that the Chinese, once they are in supply, are fearsome assault troops. One reason is the absolute size of their formations--often 500 squads, and even a few at over 700 squads. They get experience fairly quickly, don't need a lot of time to regenerate devices (just men with rifles), and they move quickly. I continue to maintain that supply is the single most important variable in attacks, more than experience or disruption or leadership. In my game, the Japanese armament point pool was flatlined, and once supplies flowed north from HK the Chinese took fearsome revenge on the invaders. Lots of 8-10k casualty battles on the IJA as they were pounded backwards toward Shanghai.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 5:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best. Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

pat.casey -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 5:55:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best. Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was. Have to agree; this is making the exception the rule. Other factor is I very much doubt (although I could be wrong), that Halsey had orders from higher authority that said "do not under any circumstances leave the transports". Instead he probably had a vague understanding to "execute the mission using reasonable discretion". If we set the reaction range to zero, that's the equivalent to putting a written order from the joint chief's on Halsey's desk saying "do not, under any circumstances, leave the transports". The thing with Halsey is he used his discretion badly, not that he disobeyed and explicit order (at least not that I'm aware of).

crsutton -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 7:13:14 PM)
Canoerebel You talk about your carriers needing to restock on planes. I am taking that to mean that you do not use CVEs and VR groups in replisment TF. Is this the case? Do you see problems with this? (not working right) or do you just use your CVEs otherwise? Seems like a repenishment TF would have come in handy here.

Canoerebel -> RE: Seven Days (7/14/2010 7:18:03 PM)
cr, a year or so ago in game time I was short on carriers so I converted all my replenishment CVEs into regular flight decks.� There might have been times when it would be helpful to replenish, but they are rare.� Usually when losses come they are so great that a few CVE VR wouldn't be enough to make good the losses and, by that time, the action is over anyhow.� I'm pleased with the decision, though I think other players could go the other way with excellent results for them. As far as I know the replenishment CVE system works.� I used it in WitP.

Page: << < prev 66 67 [68] 69 70 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125