Taking Brisbane or Nomea

Taking Brisbane or Nomea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Deban -> Taking Brisbane or Nomea (9/22/2002 2:52:51 AM)
Has anyone ever taken one of these towns yet in PBEM? And what would happen to the reinforcments that are supposed to arive at these places?

Fred98 -> (9/22/2002 7:26:12 AM)
I could not imagine any Japanese player taking Brisbane. But Noumea is a possibility. Not in the long scenario, but in some of the shorter scenarios, a strong Japanese carrier TF, could sneak down the right hand side of the map and assault Noumea. It could only work if the Allied player left Noumea unprotected and moved all forces northward. It also requires a lack of LBA on the islands North and North East of Noumea. Whilst all this is going on, the Allies are probably attacking somewhere else, so what you gain on the roundabout you lose on the swing. And I am not a gamey player anyhow.

Luskan -> not clear (9/22/2002 1:59:07 PM)
How is taking Noumea or Brisbane gamey?? In a real war it would have been a killer-blow if pulled off correctly!

Fred98 -> (9/22/2002 4:06:31 PM)
Taking Brisbane is not gamey, just not possible against a half competent player. And anyhow, Brisbane is filled with Queensland beer - yuck! Using a map edge is gamey. Specificially the right hand map edge.

Mojo -> (9/22/2002 9:44:11 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]... Using a map edge is gamey. Specificially the right hand map edge. [/B][/QUOTE] I've tried using the left hand map edge but my ships move so slow;)

Deban -> (9/23/2002 3:03:11 AM)
But IF the Japs do take one of those bases what happens to the reinforcements that are due to arrive thier?

Ross Moorhouse -> (9/24/2002 5:53:50 AM)
This word gamey. sheesh.. It seems to be that people always want balanced battles. But in war the 2 sides didnt meet first and do a head count to make sure that both sides are equal. Also the Australian War Memorial's latest issue of their magazine has an article that proves that the Japs had no plans to invade Australia at all. They lead the Allies to believe that they wanted to invade to get the USA to divert some of their forces away from the fighting to defend Australia. So back to the topic.. If someone can yake Brisbane go for it. Tell us how you did it too. :D

mogami -> To Brisbane or not Brisbane (9/24/2002 6:24:56 AM)
Greetings. For me Brisbane has no appeal. My main goal is to secure Lunga. To this end I try to capture Port Moresby to protect my supply line and flanks. Then I use everything in the Solomons (minus the barest of force to hold PM/NG-force the allied to mount a major operation to regain) If the plan works the allies will be busy in the Solomons and not able to fight in 2 places at once. I don't think the Aussie bases should be worth auto victory (I don't have a problem with the game making them auto victory I only mean I don't think in the actual event capturing one of them would have been of value but would likely have led to disaster for any Japanese land unit commited. The operation for me is Lunga and bases to the east (Santa Cruz and Espirtu Santo) I am trying to simplify my supply problem not increase it beyond limits. Supply of a land campaign in Australia boggles my mind. I don't consider it gamey. If my Japanese opponents want to try it thats their bussiness. I just do not believe it is sound.

Ron Saueracker -> Vital spots (9/24/2002 7:01:04 PM)
Port Moresby and Lunga. If IJN/IJA capture and develop defenses around these two puppies...game over or at worst a draw.

XG76 -> RE: Vital spots (12/22/2006 1:13:03 AM)
so, years after release and taking into consideration tons of experience: did anyone ever acomplished that feat successfully and (auto-?) shut down (or not...) the game by seizing N or B? Any battle report regarding this appreciated... Ralf

wissooner -> RE: Vital spots (12/26/2006 4:21:40 AM)
nope, closest I ever came was an auto-victory at Rockhampton...............................Ken

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Vital spots (1/29/2007 9:36:51 AM)
I tried N and failed. Sank my opponent's carriers for no losses on my side and took PM as well, so could concentrate on Noumea. Occupied all of New Caledonia except Noumea rather easily, then built up the small air bases to provide CAP etc., but couldn't achieve air superiority despite carrier strikes and surface bombardments on Noumea. Although Noumea was cut-off by air and surface blockade, reinforcements and supplies continue to arrive directly in the base, so there is no way to starve the base into submission. Wasn't able to amass enough forces to take Noumea, and eventually his reinforcements outnumbered my forces on land and in the air. Got bombed, bombed and bombed again, eventually losing most of transports, then most of my planes due to lack of supplies, then most of my warships (trying to evacuate the remnants of my Army) due to lack of air cover. It was probably an error to leave Luganville and Efate in Allied hands, which provided bases for heavy bombers which harrassed my convois and bombed my airfields. But taking those bases first would have meant even more time for Allied reinforcements to arrive, and would have weakened my own attack force for the main target. The entire ops was a bloody affair for both sides, but the Allies only won thanks to unrealistic supply and reinforcement availability. But it was great fun!

tocaff -> RE: Vital spots (1/29/2007 12:08:16 PM)
Luganville is probably the only realistic auto victory target for the Japanese player. The question is when to move on it? If you give the Allied player enough time he will take the base back before '43 rolls around so it's a delicate move that must be a hammer blow accepting very heavy loses. Noumea, gulp and Brisbane is a base to far.

spence -> RE: Vital spots (1/31/2007 5:28:49 AM)
I took Noumea at the beginning of July (just a turn or two ahead of the arrival of 1 Mar Div) in Scen 19 (I think). It was a near run thing though. My opp surrendered at that point (since he and I at least believe no further naval reinforcements can arrive until Noumea is Allied friendly). If I remember correctly my opp aggressively moved part of the Americal Div up to Lunga early on and that weakened the defenses at Noumea to where to where I could overcome them. If the Marines (the regiments) had landed I know my Army would have been stalemated and then I would have been way overextended. Even Luganville is probably an overextension for the Japanese. Twice as Allies I've lost it in the early going and then "bombed my way back" before 1 Jan 43. (I think the real kicker is the overlooked requirement that the Japanese must have twice the required supply in the place at that time: pretty sure I actually recaptured Luganville on about the 10th of Jan in one game; just had the garrison eating their boots for sustenance on 1 Jan by bombing the place constantly).

marky -> RE: (2/18/2007 2:41:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ross Moorhouse This word gamey. sheesh.. It seems to be that people always want balanced battles. But in war the 2 sides didnt meet first and do a head count to make sure that both sides are equal. well said! the whole point of war is to make it an unequal fight. the whole point is to get the other guy in a bad spot and keep shooting and stabbing and strafging and bombing till hes dead! period [:)] if people dont wanna play like that then they shouldnt play wargames ya know? yes its a game, but its a WAR game

marky -> RE: RE: (2/18/2007 2:41:47 AM)
but i do remember that someone invaded australia, but took heavy losses. as well i remember that someone DID once take Noumea, also with heavy losses, so it CAN be done, but its deffinitely not easy.

UV Player -> RE: RE: (2/18/2007 3:25:43 AM)
It is very posibile that marky will be able to talk more about one of these strategies. [:)]

marky -> RE: RE: (2/18/2007 6:56:38 AM)
Once, i took Rabaul, and in another game i took Kavieng, i cant remember whether it was UV or WITP tho, and i cant remember how many losses, but it was only against the AI[:'(]

marky -> RE: RE: (2/18/2007 7:01:51 AM)
as for Truk ? dont even think about it, its way too heavily defended if u wanna invade truk or ponape, which can be a good bomber base for hitting truk, or brisbane, ya gotta get WITP while UV is still and will be a great game, there are so many better options for control in WITP [:)]

HMSWarspite -> RE: RE: (2/18/2007 11:29:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marky quote: ORIGINAL: Ross Moorhouse This word gamey. sheesh.. It seems to be that people always want balanced battles. But in war the 2 sides didnt meet first and do a head count to make sure that both sides are equal. well said! the whole point of war is to make it an unequal fight. the whole point is to get the other guy in a bad spot and keep shooting and stabbing and strafging and bombing till hes dead! period [:)] if people dont wanna play like that then they shouldnt play wargames ya know? yes its a game, but its a WAR game You two are both missing the point of 'gamey'. It is nothing to do with playing fair, or having a fair fight (in the RL arena). Gamey exploits are those that exploit weaknesses in the game design to achieve results that should not be achieveable. The issue with map edges is they do not exist in RL. Creeping down a map edge, because the game design does not allow adequate recce of that hex row, when in RL, forces off board, or traffic across the board edge would spot it, is gamey. Reloading games until you get the result you want is gamey (if not cheating) even against the AI. Exploiting game mechanics, and doing things that totally disregard RL constraints (for instance, the classic end of game victory point rush - although not so much in UV - knowing the opponent doesn't have another turn to respond) is gamey. Best of luck on the most uneven, unfair vicious ambush you can manage, so long as you don't exploit weaknesses in the game to achieve it!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375