RE: Allied Losses (Full Version)

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



Message

Canoerebel -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 2:52:03 PM)

How is it remotely possible that Japan could win the war even if it got stupendously lucky and sank all the American carriers and battleships and a host of transports? The staggering losses following closely upon Pearl Harbor would have just further steeled the resolve of the American public, military, and politicians.

Meanwhile, Japan has 10 battleships, 18 cruisers, six carriers, and a complete inability to land an invasion force on any distant beach that has the slightest level of defense. So, even with a temporarily neutered United States, Japan isn't going anywhere.

And by 1943 the "fully aroused democracy" has flexed its muscles even more than it did in the real war, so Japan gets clobbered anyway.



Nikademus -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 2:56:27 PM)

even the US can't build an infinite number of major warships within a set timeframe. I'm still wondering what the OT's opponent was doing to lose so many major warships. Its enough to gut several navies put together.




obvert -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 3:02:59 PM)

quote:


I would not rely on off map entry camping. It works sometimes, but you expose your fleets far
away from safe harbors, and guzzle up loads of fuel. Both is not something a Japanese player should do out
of a habit.


With this kind of naval disparity, does the IJN have to worry about fuel? (I haven't played much on the dark side, so I may be off base).

The best way to kill troops is when they're on ships, right?

If CVs/CVLs (and long-legged air ) were in Perth, Diego Garcia, Socotra, and S Pacific, (about half of total, while others, 2 CV and 2 CVL perhaps, stayed in KB and pursued offensive operations), and small CL/DD and CS/DD TFs combined with air were searching the waters, wouldn't you hamstring the only strength left to the Allies (amount of supply, troops, air, etc)? At least for 6 months until the Essex CVs arrived?



LoBaron -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 3:23:51 PM)

I assumed that your question was if this is a viable strategy in general.

In the specific situation of the OPs PBEM it is clearly an option, but with this supremacy
there are better strategies available. LBA does not protect you at night, mines only protect
you against bombardement TFs in combination with surface assets to kill minesweepers, the list goes
on and on.
In a three dimensional battlefield this Allied player is robbed of a whole dimension and this cannot
be replaced by other assets.

The Japanese side can play aggressive without covering the map edges. There are abvious spots where his opponents
fleets need to move to if he wants them to make an impact (either with military vessels or with transports carrying troops).
In that situation these bases are the main targets and the ships with these bases as destination.

As Nik is, I am at loss how such a desaster could happen. Its about the weirdest situation in a PBEM I have seen up to
now.





crsutton -> RE: Allied Losses (2/24/2011 3:24:13 PM)

Yes, I agree. I think one of the most amazing non events of this past century is that WWIII did not take place between the West and the Soviet Bloc. But without total victory over the Axis, or God forbid, the reverse, I can's see how the conflict could have ended with any long standing peace.



JeffroK -> RE: Allied Losses (2/27/2011 1:19:44 AM)

Changed surrender criteria?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Objective.html





mike scholl 1 -> RE: Allied Losses (2/27/2011 2:46:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many.



But JFB's want Japanese stereotypes of Westerners to be right, no matter how nonsensical and prejudiced they might be.



Stuffedlogon -> RE: Allied Losses (2/27/2011 4:32:19 AM)




[/quote]

Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.
[/quote]


Well........I consider myself to be experienced but in current PBEM I decided to try and see if I could speed up the war by landing in the DEI.....I have now experienced similar losses to the original poster of this thread. If nothing it has made for a fun game for my opponent who shall remain nameless less his head gets to big.

Raverdave elects to withhold his name.



The Gnome -> RE: Allied Losses (2/27/2011 4:49:37 AM)

This smells suspiciously like another post about lopsided allied losses....



bradfordkay -> RE: Allied Losses (2/27/2011 5:04:12 AM)

meh...   There's people out there who don't care about digital losses. They're happy playing an aggressive game, and I'm sure that their opponents are happy as well... 



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8574219