RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Chickenboy -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 9:43:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I think everyone would like it best if you return to read only mode.  [8|]



I just wanted to cher this with you,
I'm sorry I wasted your time.


Not as sorry as we are.



Chickenboy -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:30:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Of course! A 900-ship Allied invasion armada at Pearl signals an invasion of Timor or Java, but doesn't in any way suggest that a Japanese-held New Zealand or Pago Pago or Hokkaido or Sikhalin Island might be the target.


Well, now, Canoerebel-to be fair I've had a similar experience.

You see, I was telling my wife, Morgan Fairchilds, about this the other day. Yessiree. Well, my 34th complete game of WiTP:AE (with a record at the time of 33-1, naturally. I let AW1Steve beat me once for the sake of his own morale) had a similar outcome.

On September 4, 1943, one of my Glen submarines overflew San Francisco. I spied an AE, AS, AD, three xAKLs, a garbage scow and three rowboats tied up (LEFT handed sheepshanks) to pier 39 / Fisherman's wharf. The Glen pilot also reported the unmistakeable aroma of vanilla extract and melange of beached California sea lion. I'll spare you the details of my brilliant deduction, but I *knew* then that my opponent was going to liberate Funafuti atoll. I amassed all available ships & LBA there and crushed his fleet. I sank all of his ships-every last one, including some that were supposed to be in the Atlantic ocean.

It probably helped that he put 1800+ ships in one TF, didn't fly CAP and continuously fired aerial flares to mark the progress of his fleet towards its eventual goal. My u-boat wolfpacks were also murderous, as were my Me-262s, AEGIS-equipped destroyers and VSTOL Harriers. You see-I moved up my research 'a bit'-and we were playing a "custom" OOB.

For some players, I guess it takes them a while longer (1944) to effect such a crushing victory. We can't be too harsh though.



zace -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:30:56 PM)

as a little insight to us lower time forum people can some insight be given.

It does look like the original post is mathematically incorrect (you only have so many squadrons as IJ why are they all in one area?). However, it kinda looks like an assumption is being made as to who 5thguard is.

Those of us who have not been here for 5 years may be a little confused on are you just beating up on someone or someone with a history...



Chickenboy -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:39:04 PM)

PM sent.



Miller -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:43:36 PM)

Dare I say...................Marky[;)]



witpqs -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:44:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



Well, now, Canoerebel-to be fair I've had a similar experience.

You see, I was telling my wife, Morgan Fairchilds...


[sm=00000280.gif]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:56:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Heya, "5th Guards Tank Army". For being such a prolific player of AE, it's very surprising that you're such a new poster on this forum. Might we recognize you by other names, perhaps? [8|]

Some questions: How would you know what the precise experience of the Allied pilots was in this encounter? Does your Allied opponent routinely divulge such OPSEC issues in your games?

Also, sounds like some of the bases you have are unusual for a 1944 game. Has your Allied opponent not seen fit to evict you from New Zealand yet? Very curious approach for such an 'experienced' Allied player.



My first thought looking at this combat report was "Has anyone seen Knavey lately?"

I have never, ever, no matter what the density of targets, seen that many sub attacks in one turn.

I call BS.



Terminus -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 10:58:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Dare I say...................Marky[;)]


He's called "Japan". Or whatever the voices call him this week.



stuman -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/29/2011 11:06:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Of course! A 900-ship Allied invasion armada at Pearl signals an invasion of Timor or Java, but doesn't in any way suggest that a Japanese-held New Zealand or Pago Pago or Hokkaido or Sikhalin Island might be the target.


Well, now, Canoerebel-to be fair I've had a similar experience.

You see, I was telling my wife, Morgan Fairchilds, about this the other day. Yessiree. Well, my 34th complete game of WiTP:AE (with a record at the time of 33-1, naturally. I let AW1Steve beat me once for the sake of his own morale) had a similar outcome.


Married to Morgan, very nice !

And nice of you to let Steve win once.

On September 4, 1943, one of my Glen submarines overflew San Francisco. I spied an AE, AS, AD, three xAKLs, a garbage scow and three rowboats tied up (LEFT handed sheepshanks) to pier 39 / Fisherman's wharf. The Glen pilot also reported the unmistakeable aroma of vanilla extract and melange of beached California sea lion. I'll spare you the details of my brilliant deduction, but I *knew* then that my opponent was going to liberate Funafuti atoll. I amassed all available ships & LBA there and crushed his fleet. I sank all of his ships-every last one, including some that were supposed to be in the Atlantic ocean.

It probably helped that he put 1800+ ships in one TF, didn't fly CAP and continuously fired aerial flares to mark the progress of his fleet towards its eventual goal. My u-boat wolfpacks were also murderous, as were my Me-262s, AEGIS-equipped destroyers and VSTOL Harriers. You see-I moved up my research 'a bit'-and we were playing a "custom" OOB.

For some players, I guess it takes them a while longer (1944) to effect such a crushing victory. We can't be too harsh though.


Magnanimous as always !






Nemo121 -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 12:40:07 AM)

Damn, seriously this forum needs to form a Cold Cases team or something. From post to utter debunking in just a few hours. [:D]

Sometimes the conduct on this forum makes me despair about humanity in general and sometimes it just makes me smile and think, "we'll muddle through.... Somehow."



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 12:58:57 AM)

I think it's more that your opponents just made about a dozen mistakes and of course I don't know how the game went up to this point.



stuman -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 1:03:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Damn, seriously this forum needs to form a Cold Cases team or something. From post to utter debunking in just a few hours. [:D]

Sometimes the conduct on this forum makes me despair about humanity in general and sometimes it just makes me smile and think, "we'll muddle through.... Somehow."



I agree with both sentiments Nemo.

Let's lean to the slightly optimistic and lurch towards the " we'll muddle through ", while being realistic about certain aspects of our natures [:)]



Andy Mac -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 1:16:18 AM)

Thanks for sharing thats an interesting report.

Marshalling 900 ships at Perth is a bit of a giveaway but you still needed to deliver on the ambush so a good result for japan.

(Why the hostility guys if you marshall int he open and walk into a trap then it happens) ?



Alfred -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 1:37:45 AM)

I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the Japanese player. On the other hand, to describe the Allied player as "experienced" is quite misleading and appears to have been used to give added lustre to the "brilliant" play exhibited by the Japanese player.

What I would like to comment on is the widespread use of the term "experienced" on the forum. Invariably the term is applied to a player to indicate the "experienced" player is a strong player. More often than not the so called "experienced" player is not a strong player.

All that the term 'experienced" really means is that the individual in question has accumulated some hours of playing the game. It does not automatically mean that the player has mastered game mechanics or concepts, let alone can synthesise all the game elements and form dangerous plans which are then implemented competently. Too often I see "experienced" players who clearly do not understand game mechanics.

For experience to translate into playing strength, requires the individual to rationally analyse their play. A player who merely accumulated more time at the game without self analysing his games may well simply continue repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Then there is also the question of the strength of opponents played. A weakness is only a weakness if it can and is exploited by the opponent. An "experienced" player who has only played opponents who are of lesser strength than himself, may simply not have his mistakes highlighted.

Alfred



JeffroK -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 1:40:46 AM)

IMHO it was just too perfect, his intel just a bit too perfect, the ambush is overplayed.

It is a warning for those who are considering sticking their nose into Indian country without spending a lot of effort in attriting the enemy.



Ketza -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 4:50:07 AM)

15 minutes of forum fame....

It started smelling bad around the 5th sub attack.



vettim89 -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 5:58:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Of course! A 900-ship Allied invasion armada at Pearth signals an invasion of Timor or Java, but doesn't in any way suggest that a Japanese-held New Zealand or Pago Pago or Hokkaido or Sikhalin Island might be the target.

Methinks I know who thou really art, 5th Guards.



I did not see New Zeland or Pago as an option due to it being Summer of 1944, and he was so far behind schadule that taking New Zeland at that point would not make him able to get the VP needed by 1/45 to not lose the game at that point due to VP score.


Just taking the combat report as accurate than I will 100% dispute that 5th Guards opponent is a "skilled" opponent. He may have played a number of games but just the bits and pieces revealed here show errors that at best could be called dumbfounding. The pilot training issue has been well detailed. USN exp levels start the war in the high 60's. The failure to keep the US Carriers well stocked with 70+ EXP pilots is derilict at best. I would add:

1. Where is the AB suppression? By this point the Allied player should be well supplied with enough LBA to at least attrit if not eliminate such a mass of Japanese LBA

2. Any Allied player who would let the Japanese still have possesion of Diego Garcia in July of 1944 is a dufus. Sorry to be so rough on the guy but the base sits right off the off map entry point. The Allied player could enter the map with several SCTF and pound the AB into the stone edge before the Japanese player could react. Taking it would be no problem after that.

3. Auckland alone represents over a 1500 VP swing by changing from Japan to Allied hands. Letting the Japanese hold NZ this late in the war again = dufus

4. Odd that we saw all those IJN subs but not a single Allied one. That's either really bad luck or really bad play

At first I thought it was an amazing combat report but after closer inspection, I think it is an aberration at best.

Also he mentioned he had three divisions on each island when asked about the Marianas/Marshalls. I assume he meant the Marianas. Still thats nine divisions occupying an incredibly small amount of space on a very big map. If he had nine in the Marianas, how many were holding down the fort in "impregnable" New Zealand?

Just odd



scott64 -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 6:01:52 AM)

I say operator error. [:'(][:D]



Canoerebel -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 6:33:08 AM)

Well, you guys aren't giving 5th Guards a fair shake.  Fortunately I, as a man of letters and good taste, a man who is supple yet winsome in a modest way, have taken the time to impartially analyze the tragic fate of the experienced but cruelly unlucky Allied player in this game.

Noting that the amazing 5th Guards still holds Diego Garcia, Auckland, and Pago Pago in 1944, I realized that the Allied player must have been snakebit from the word go.  No doubt he suffered immeasurably from the first day.  His losses at Pearl Harbor must have left him paralyzed, unable to mount a single operation for more than two years.  Knowing this must be true, I scan the combat report for evidence, sure that I will find a telling lack of battleships.  Here's the pathetic remnant of a once-proud fleet that we find present at this nip-and-tuck clash of titans:

Allied BBs at the Horrid Battle of Timor:  New Jersey, Iowa, Alabama, Indiana, Mississippi, Idaho, Tennessee, Washington, North Carolina, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Richelieu, Renown, South Dakota, Valiant, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Maryland, Arizona, Idaho, California, and Queen Elizabeth.

I have no idea where the Prince of Wales was.  Perhaps her absence from this list is transcriber era. I had such moisture in my eyes.

Okay, so the Allied player didn't suffer devastating losses to his big-boy power at Pearl Harbor (or any other date during the war until the the fates suddenly turned their fangs on him at the Malignant Battle of Timor).  Clearly, his failure to contest the Japanese incursions deeply into Allied territory can be attributed to the loss of so many fleet carriers.  Shaken at the carnage the poor Allied player endured through two-and-one-half years of war, I take a census of the sad remnants of his fleet carriers present at the Gruesome Battle of Timor:  Hornet, Hornet II, Wasp, Wasp II, Bunker Hill, Yorktown II, Saratoga, Enterprise, Franklin, Lexington, Essex, and Illustrious.  God only knows where Yorktown I was - possibly the loss of this great ship so unnerved the Allied player that against such a fearsome opponent - and dare we say a lucky one, considering the submarine mayhem he unleashed this Armageddon-like day - he simply retired his fleet carriers to East Coast for sanctuary.

Ah, methinks, it must have been the losses of light fleet carriers that so unnerved yon Allied victim of ill-chance.  I peruse the combat report to find present at the Ruthless Battle at at at...oh, it is a burden to continue...Timor:  Cowpens, Monterey, Bellieu Wood, Cabot, Langley, Princeton, and San Jacinto.  Possibly I missed some due to the tears in my eyes. Independence, for instance. Did she somehow miss this battle, or had the Allied player, brought to his knees by an atomic-fission-like chain of misfortune, lost her when a dropped cotton swap caused a massive fuel storage explosion? Oh, wait...I'm sorry, Independence was there too!

So, I said to myself, I know what happened to this Allied player sacrificed to appease the insatiable gods of war, he tried to do something bold while protecting the precious few battleships and fleet carriers left to him. He cobbled together an immense fleet of CVEs in a desperate attempt to provide CAP for an ill-fated invasion of Pago Pago at the terribly early date of January 1, 1944, and lost them all.  Stunned by the realization of the truth of such a fate, I counted CVEs present at the Most Majestic in its Awfulness Battle of Timor:  Copahee, Begum, Battler, St. Lo, Ranee, Manila Bay, Kalinin Bay, Nassau, Petrof Bay, Anzio, Suwannee, Nehenta Bay, Gambier Bay, Corregidor, Tulagi, Santee, Liscome Bay, Natoma Bay, Chenango, White Plains, Sansamon, Kasaan Bay, Kitkun Bay, Ommaney Bay, Savo Island, Saginaw Bay, Fanshaw Bay, Shipley Bay, Hoggatt Bay, Unicorn, Bataan, Ranee, Kadashan Bay, Altamaha, Prince William, Breton, Shah, Wake Island, Rudyerd Bay, Barnes, Marcus Island, and goodness knows which others. 

Broken at the knowledge the Allied player must've not had Long Island present for this last-gasp battle, I return to the sickening combat report and, to my relief, find that she was indeed present. So at least this forsaken and forlorn Allied player did have a fighting chance at the Furious in its Wrath Battle of that Little Island inhabited by a Super Race of Ominiscient Japanese Bushido Code Warriors.

I admit I could have overlooked one or two other CVEs, but by this point I was quaking in stark realization that this eternally-suffering Allied contestant must have lost his ENTIRE fleet of cruisers, light cruisers, and destroyers at the Wonderfully Awesome in the Fact that the Allied Player Lost Like 20 Battleships and 50 Carriers and the Japanese Player didn't Lose a Single One not even a Scratch because he was so Smart and Lucky that he allowed his Fleet of 16,000 Submarines and Amazing Rocket-Powered if outnumbered by 35 to 1 Aircraft to Decimate the Entire Fleet of the Allied Player so Careful he had never Previously Risked a Single Ship in Battle even to Stop the Japanese from taking and holding Auckland into 1944 Skirmish. 

However, my empathy for his burden is so unbearable that I cannot stand up under the strain of this any longer.  I sadly must give up this exercise...

...to instead mull over the plight of the hopelessly misfortunate Japanese player who watched as the KB apparently didn't launch a single sortie on December 7, 1941. Goodness knows how he mustered the willpower to soldier on through the rest of the war, pushing so far, conquering so much, but managing to sink not a single Allied capital vessel for going on three years of war (with the possible exceptions of Yorktown I and Prince of Wales, though it's more likely they were here too, but overlooked amongst the other 80 or 90 or 300 capital ships sunk in one unforgettable day).



aoffen -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 8:29:07 AM)

What's going on? Who is 5thGTA and why does everyone else but me seem to know what is happening?
Rgds
Andrew



YankeeAirRat -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 9:11:33 AM)

Don't feel so bad, I don't know who 5th GTA is either. However, most everyone is calling baloney on this thread and the combat reports he posted. Simply cause they sound too good to be true. Sort of like the classic fairy tale of the "Little Tailor", except here we have what looks like the whole of the Allied Fleet throwing themselves away in some DEI island landing in an attempt to turn the Japanese offensive away in 1944. Basically, the Japanese massacre the Allies through the use of Submarines and LBA. It just does seem right to most of the other posters and players here.



JeffroK -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 9:48:48 AM)

CR, You have faaar too much time on your hands.

(But you run a newspaper dont you? Now I know where some of those wierd news stories come from!!)

[:'(]

My read throught the combat reports showed most raids coming in at 8-11k ft, good warning but Castor Troy's dive-dive-dive didnt show.

We also dont see any:
Aircraft Attacking:
15 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 5000 feet *
Airfield Attack:  2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
reports.  Must have done a lot of editing.

Plus I have never seen any combat reports where TF's were "merged"  (Maybe I should look harder)



Canoerebel -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 1:23:28 PM)

For those fairly new to the AE forums and uncertain as to what's going on here, the original post includes an amazing and unprecedented - and false - combat report passed off as genuine. It took us a little while to piece together the fraud, and now we are expressing our amazement and distaste at the effort.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 2:37:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

On September 4, 1943, one of my Glen submarines overflew San Francisco. I spied an AE, AS, AD, three xAKLs, a garbage scow and three rowboats tied up (LEFT handed sheepshanks) to pier 39 / Fisherman's wharf. The Glen pilot also reported the unmistakeable aroma of vanilla extract and melange of beached California sea lion. I'll spare you the details of my brilliant deduction, but I *knew* then that my opponent was going to liberate Funafuti atoll. I amassed all available ships & LBA there and crushed his fleet. I sank all of his ships-every last one, including some that were supposed to be in the Atlantic ocean.

It probably helped that he put 1800+ ships in one TF, didn't fly CAP and continuously fired aerial flares to mark the progress of his fleet towards its eventual goal. My u-boat wolfpacks were also murderous, as were my Me-262s, AEGIS-equipped destroyers and VSTOL Harriers. You see-I moved up my research 'a bit'-and we were playing a "custom" OOB.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

quote:

He's called "Japan". Or whatever the voices call him this week.


HAHAHAHAHA!

Oooh, what a good laugh! Thank you! [&o]



5thGuardsTankArmy -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 3:14:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I think everyone would like it best if you return to read only mode.  [8|]









quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




quote:

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy



I just wanted to cher this with you,
I'm sorry I wasted your time.






Not as sorry as we are.










What is this bullying?
Are you only a bunch of 15 year old kids with reduced social intelligence, only able and fit to show rude and ignorant behavior when confronted with unexpected situations?

For the more intelligent users of this forum, I think if you read through every one of this posts you will be able to see how the wolfs (kids) are gathering and how they react to this confronting situation . You can see how they have problems accepting the mighty allies being militarily defeated, and if so then it must be due to total incompetence from the Allied players part.. oh yes, of course it must.. (process of denying... and then return fire).

Just for the cause of amusement, lets assume that this entire thread was baloney - then still see the reaction among this kids throwing rude statements around themselves instead of engaging in a mature conversation pointing out the things which they find to be suspicious.


No, I rest my case little kids - Papa will return to the retirement home now - if you like.
Good Bye.



Terminus -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 3:16:10 PM)

Yes, please go away, "Japan". You're not fooling anyone.



5thGuardsTankArmy -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 3:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

=








[image]http://i54.tinypic.com/dbjszp.jpg[/image]



Erkki -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 3:30:20 PM)

[image]http://marketmynovel.com/images/Dont-Feed-the-Trolls.png[/image]



Big B -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 7:58:34 PM)

Simply...wow.
I just thought it was weird seeing Hellcats getting clobbered consistently by at least 2:1 while outnumbering the opposition by at least 2:1.

I don't know...just seemed unusual to me for 1944, but on the other hand, I wasn't there...I just read the papers like everyone else.



Local Yokel -> RE: Slaughter of the Allied CV/BB Fleet - Combat 1944 (1/30/2011 8:07:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

For those fairly new to the AE forums and uncertain as to what's going on here, the original post includes an amazing and unprecedented - and false - combat report passed off as genuine. It took us a little while to piece together the fraud, and now we are expressing our amazement and distaste at the effort.


This thread makes depressing reading.

Accusing a contributor who began this thread with his fifth post to this forum of being a liar and a fraudster is thoroughly distasteful unless the accuser provides incontrovertible evidence to that effect. So far I haven’t seen any such evidence and I doubt that any can be produced.

The readiness of a number of contributors to join the witch hunt on the flimsiest of pretexts is equally distasteful and suggests a degree of intolerance that should have no place on this forum.

“I will return to read only mode,” says the OP at post #23, and I am not in the least surprised. Unless it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that the combat report posted is a fabrication, I believe he is owed an apology.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875