RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (Full Version)

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

Message

Onime No Kyo -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 6:55:06 PM)
I've never played a PBEM as Japan so I wont claim to know the problems, I'm just curious as to why so many people here seem to think that reinforcing Palembang is such a ridiculous notion.If we take it as a given that Palembang is the major oil producing location on the map, you can also take it as a given that the Allied commander would know that as well as the Japanese commander trying to capture it. Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter. But to say that its a "ridiculous" notion is ridiculous in itself, it seems to me.

Nikademus -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:12:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I've never played a PBEM as Japan so I wont claim to know the problems, I'm just curious as to why so many people here seem to think that reinforcing Palembang is such a ridiculous notion.If we take it as a given that Palembang is the major oil producing location on the map, you can also take it as a given that the Allied commander would know that as well as the Japanese commander trying to capture it. Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter. But to say that its a "ridiculous" notion is ridiculous in itself, it seems to me. I wasn't myself saying the defense was "ridiculous", I said it was a 'problem' for the Player one. It has game breaking consequences when added to the detail control given to the players coupled with how production centers work. To make P a fortress you just need to get a couple large units there and entrench. The 'local generated' supply does the rest. If one wishes to add "realism" to the discussion, historically logistics were a major problem so it wasn't simply a matter of moving in large units and digging in ala the Eastern Front. Also there's the hindsight factor. The Japanese plan was logical and there were reasons why certain areas were invaded first. Using this hindsight, Player two can rush reinforcements to a critical spot and according to the OT, if its put into place by Dec 21, you're pretty much set. "Historically" the Japanese were in no such position to invade Sumatra (short of using WitP war maneuvers) well after that period. That creates a problem of simulating the actual historical situation. Its not unique to WitP. Alot of the angst caused in the current WitE follows along similar lines. The common denominator is the level of player control. The more control given to the player, the more the game pace can be thrown out of wack. This issue then gets buried under accusations and counter-accusations of player bias favoring one side or the other. Speaking strictly from game experience, as player one......i find Palembang/Sumatra/Java/Timor a major challenge because unless one uses reverse tactics, player two has all the time in the world to coordinate forces and make these locations if not impregnible, but extremely tough. Interestingly, PacWar simulated the Theater better because it limited player input, but a small number of players complained that they "couldn't do anything" with the area and wanted more control. Now we have AE at the end of the evolutionary line with a level of detail control that causes eye strain but no corrosponding govenors on decision making and a generic supply system that supports fortress building even in areas where it wasn't feasible. Any time you have a Pro that has no sufficient Con to counter it, you get a problem in wargaming.

Historiker -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:14:57 PM)
What was portrayed is that the British abandon Malaya to send their troops to some Dutch swamp area. Or that they don't send their reinforcements to Singapore or Burma, but to some swamps in the DEI. Or that the Dutch weaken Java, with many Dutch civilians on it, to defend some swampy oilwells. It is an exploit of several game elements, pure and simple. If this is the way this PBEM is played, then so be it. But both sides should be well aware of it.

Chickenboy -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:29:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter. Onime, I'm late on the scene on this one too. The reason "Fortress" Palembang isn't "Fortress anywhere else on Sumatra" is because of the game mechanic of oil refineries producing supply. This supply can be used to support massive armies in this hex. Several extreme AAR examples have resulted in the Allies prematurely exiting Singapore and preferentially building Palembang. Knowing that they would always be in supply, several players have sent arriving British infantry divisions to hold this bastion and evacuated critical LCUs from Malaya here to build this bullwark. This supply problem allows a defense to be built way deeper than it could IRL, faster and on a critically important oil hex to deny it to an IJ opponent. It goes way beyond putting some disposal engineer units on the hex to trash it when the IJ pushes the Allies out.

Canoerebel -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:45:51 PM)
I'm only aware of one game in which the Allies drew down on Singapore in order to garrison Palembang: Nemo vs. One-Eyed-Jacks. This is all much ado about nothing. Japan can counter any Fortress Palembang effort. There are also clever ways for Japan to take advantage of a FP effort. (Nemo and Alfred have posted about this at length in various AARs). FP can force Japan to halt what it wants to do in favor of what it has to do, but there's nothing wrong with that. If the Japanese player is alert, he can retake the initiative. If he's not, he's in trouble. Okay, big deal. But claiming this is some kind of major anomoloy because the Allied didn't or couldn't do it? Hah What about Japan hanging around Pearl Harbor and striking for four consecutive days as the OP did in our game? I didn't complain about that because I, as the Allied player, could have taken advantage of that had I had enough experience and smarts. Japan couldn't/wouldn't have done that in real life, so do we have to have a House Rule preventing it? Of course not. Neither is one necessary for FP. One of the beauties of the game is identifying and implementing creative strategies that think "outside the box." That puts us as players most realistically in the seats of commanders who, at the outset of the real war, didn't know that certain areas would be critial. Guadalanal, Point Luck, and Iwo Jima, for instance. Absent some "novelties" introduced into the game, either intentionally or unintentionally, alot of drama and suspese disappears to. I say "bring on the anomalies." IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them! We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map.

Chickenboy -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:49:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I say "bring on the anomalies." IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them! We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map. Not interested in this sort of game that repurposes gameplay issues as clever tactical / strategic planning.

Canoerebel -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:51:01 PM)
I don't even know what that means.

Historiker -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:52:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I say "bring on the anomalies." IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them! We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map. Not interested in this sort of game that repurposes gameplay issues as clever tactical / strategic planning. +1 I have yet to see where someone admits he intentionelly exploits [;)]

Sardaukar -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:52:24 PM)
As said, problem disappears when playing modified scenarios where refineries do not produce supplies.

Chickenboy -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 7:56:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I don't even know what that means. Sorry. I thought I was being clear. The use of the "Fortress Palembang" defense is an exploit of game mechanics and has nothing to do with a clever defense strategy. I cannot repackage / repurpose an exploit of game mechanics and turn it into a novel / creative defense strategy in my mind. I would hope to root out exploiters of game mechanics in the pre-game discussion, so as to not have my PBEM descend to the lowest common denominator. Hope that's clearer.

MBF -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 8:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Sorry. I thought I was being clear. The use of the "Fortress Palembang" defense is an exploit of game mechanics and has nothing to do with a clever defense strategy. I cannot repackage / repurpose an exploit of game mechanics and turn it into a novel / creative defense strategy in my mind. I would hope to root out exploiters of game mechanics in the pre-game discussion, so as to not have my PBEM descend to the lowest common denominator. Hope that's clearer. ++1

mjk428 -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 8:29:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker What was portrayed is that the British abandon Malaya to send their troops to some Dutch swamp area. Or that they don't send their reinforcements to Singapore or Burma, but to some swamps in the DEI. Or that the Dutch weaken Java, with many Dutch civilians on it, to defend some swampy oilwells. It is an exploit of several game elements, pure and simple. If this is the way this PBEM is played, then so be it. But both sides should be well aware of it. It's an obvious resource objective for the Japs - no hindsight required. It's also the largest base in Sumatra (4 port, 4 airfield) not just a swamp. The one thing unfair about defending there is the supply it generates. That's only one game element. Eliminate that, which has already been done in some mods, and there's nothing the least bit gamey about defending Palembang.

obvert -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 8:37:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker What was portrayed is that the British abandon Malaya to send their troops to some Dutch swamp area. Or that they don't send their reinforcements to Singapore or Burma, but to some swamps in the DEI. Or that the Dutch weaken Java, with many Dutch civilians on it, to defend some swampy oilwells. It is an exploit of several game elements, pure and simple. If this is the way this PBEM is played, then so be it. But both sides should be well aware of it. It's an obvious resource objective for the Japs - no hindsight required. It's also the largest base in Sumatra (4 port, 4 airfield) not just a swamp. The one thing unfair about defending there is the supply it generates. That's only one game element. Eliminate that, which has already been done in some mods, and there's nothing the least bit gamey about defending Palembang. The supply it generates may be a difficulty for simulating a realistic fortress there. In game there is plenty of supply to bring there, and several fairly well protected ports to bring it in from. It wouldn't be too hard for an Allied player to turn off the refinery and bring in 60k supply a month to feed the troops. I've only played Japan and I'm facing a small fort Palembang right now, but I have no problem with it. Torsten has also suggested a plan for making sure the oil doesn't get trashed once it is fully invaded and the fight is looking to go the Japanese way. Equally difficult though was my first PBEM opponent using a combination of 4E day bombing and Dutch night bombing AFTER it was taken. This ruined more oil wells than any fortress I've faced so far. That brings up another question. What is the worst result from battle damage anyone has seen there?

Onime No Kyo -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 8:49:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I've never played a PBEM as Japan so I wont claim to know the problems, I'm just curious as to why so many people here seem to think that reinforcing Palembang is such a ridiculous notion.If we take it as a given that Palembang is the major oil producing location on the map, you can also take it as a given that the Allied commander would know that as well as the Japanese commander trying to capture it. Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter. But to say that its a "ridiculous" notion is ridiculous in itself, it seems to me. I wasn't myself saying the defense was "ridiculous", I said it was a 'problem' for the Player one. It has game breaking consequences when added to the detail control given to the players coupled with how production centers work. To make P a fortress you just need to get a couple large units there and entrench. The 'local generated' supply does the rest. If one wishes to add "realism" to the discussion, historically logistics were a major problem so it wasn't simply a matter of moving in large units and digging in ala the Eastern Front. Also there's the hindsight factor. The Japanese plan was logical and there were reasons why certain areas were invaded first. Using this hindsight, Player two can rush reinforcements to a critical spot and according to the OT, if its put into place by Dec 21, you're pretty much set. "Historically" the Japanese were in no such position to invade Sumatra (short of using WitP war maneuvers) well after that period. That creates a problem of simulating the actual historical situation. Its not unique to WitP. Alot of the angst caused in the current WitE follows along similar lines. The common denominator is the level of player control. The more control given to the player, the more the game pace can be thrown out of wack. This issue then gets buried under accusations and counter-accusations of player bias favoring one side or the other. Speaking strictly from game experience, as player one......i find Palembang/Sumatra/Java/Timor a major challenge because unless one uses reverse tactics, player two has all the time in the world to coordinate forces and make these locations if not impregnible, but extremely tough. Interestingly, PacWar simulated the Theater better because it limited player input, but a small number of players complained that they "couldn't do anything" with the area and wanted more control. Now we have AE at the end of the evolutionary line with a level of detail control that causes eye strain but no corrosponding govenors on decision making and a generic supply system that supports fortress building even in areas where it wasn't feasible. Any time you have a Pro that has no sufficient Con to counter it, you get a problem in wargaming. I didnt mean you specifically, dood. I was talking about the overall mood in here. [:D]

GreyJoy -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 8:52:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I don't even know what that means. Sorry. I thought I was being clear. The use of the "Fortress Palembang" defense is an exploit of game mechanics and has nothing to do with a clever defense strategy. I cannot repackage / repurpose an exploit of game mechanics and turn it into a novel / creative defense strategy in my mind. I would hope to root out exploiters of game mechanics in the pre-game discussion, so as to not have my PBEM descend to the lowest common denominator. Hope that's clearer. Don't agree with you here. I think these strategies are part of the game, exactly like Engine Bonus to speed up the R&D at incredible levels or like the "warp speed move" that can easily be changed in something more than the usual landings... Japan can and have to counter a possible Fortress Palembang as Nemo and Alfred has clearly stated in CR's AAR against Chez. However, i think it's a matter of tastes... we're all right and all wrong...you just need to find an opponent with your same taste and everything is fine (imho)

Onime No Kyo -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 8:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I say "bring on the anomalies." IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them! We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map. Not interested in this sort of game that repurposes gameplay issues as clever tactical / strategic planning. +1 I have yet to see where someone admits he intentionelly exploits [;)] I still dont understand what all the noise is about. I definitely dont understand what youre expecting to hear. In the 2x2 I'm part of, the Japanese took their sweet time with Palembang. In fact, they took so much time that we moved every Dutch unit in Sumatra to Palembang and built the entrenchment up to 4 (iirc). It took the guys over a month and a huge stack of troops to take it. And when they did, the place (according to communications with them) was completely wrecked. If youre expecting me to fall on my sword for that or admit some sort of wrongdoing, keep waiting. [8\|]

Nikademus -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 9:01:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Sorry. I thought I was being clear. The use of the "Fortress Palembang" defense is an exploit of game mechanics and has nothing to do with a clever defense strategy. I cannot repackage / repurpose an exploit of game mechanics and turn it into a novel / creative defense strategy in my mind. I would hope to root out exploiters of game mechanics in the pre-game discussion, so as to not have my PBEM descend to the lowest common denominator. Hope that's clearer. Combined with that the freeing up of substantial at start forces that were supposed to go to specific areas. This is what i would term a developer exploit since it was an OOB decision. In all past versions of the game (including PacWar), certain reinforcements showed up in places like Singapore or Oz to represent their historical deployments. AE changed that. As i said before, there is not a single player who will reasonably send those units (now starting the game on "convoys" instead of showing up at a base) elsewhere which has the potential to tilt the game from the get go (based on my player experiences and observations) A repeat PH strike was mentioned in the typical frame I spoke of earlier, that being about the underlying issue of exploits and unbalanced gameplay getting buried by polarized arguments about one side or the other being favored. [8\|] Are the two examples the same? Not really. Player one does indeed have the 'choice' to attack PH twice or three times. Its not a guranteed exploit though because even in Stock AE there are risks entailed. I for one don't always attack PH twice and if a player wants it attacked once as a HR....i'm fine with that. What player is going to take a convoy with 2/3rds of a division at game start and send them to singapore? none that i've ever heard of. the PH repeat strike gripe is more easily fixed. Try it with the Babes mod with the AA tweak. You won't be so tempted to do it again. Removing the supply generation is another fix. I'd go one step further than that. From a designer viewpoint, if i were to do a future game, i'd restrict alot more player actions on both sides in order to truely simulate the situation. I know this would not be popular with some. I've been seeing alot of comments lately in favor of highly variable strategies on the grounds of "a game should allow us to explore real life possibiities same as the real life commanders" Actually its the opposite. Real life commanders faced severe and often very restrictive choices due to political as well as military priorities. In AE, combined with day to day detail control we can "explore" strategies like "Fortress Palembang" or on the other side of the coin, the 'Mersing gambit' freely and ably all with the click of a button. There's another problem hidden even deeper.....reinforcement and supply.

Nikademus -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 9:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I still dont understand what all the noise is about. I definitely dont understand what youre expecting to hear. In the 2x2 I'm part of, the Japanese took their sweet time with Palembang. In fact, they took so much time that we moved every Dutch unit in Sumatra to Palembang and built the entrenchment up to 4 (iirc). It took the guys over a month and a huge stack of troops to take it. And when they did, the place (according to communications with them) was completely wrecked. If youre expecting me to fall on my sword for that or admit some sort of wrongdoing, keep waiting. [8\|] But i want to see you fall on your sword [:'(] Try a PBEM against a good Allied player. See if you can counter such gambits without using reverse tactics.

mjk428 -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 9:04:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreyJoy However, i think it's a matter of tastes... we're all right and all wrong...you just need to find an opponent with your same taste and everything is fine (imho) Agreed. I lwouldn't defend it vigorously only because I normally don't send my units on suicide missions.

Historiker -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 9:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I still dont understand what all the noise is about. I definitely dont understand what youre expecting to hear. In the 2x2 I'm part of, the Japanese took their sweet time with Palembang. In fact, they took so much time that we moved every Dutch unit in Sumatra to Palembang and built the entrenchment up to 4 (iirc). It took the guys over a month and a huge stack of troops to take it. And when they did, the place (according to communications with them) was completely wrecked. If youre expecting me to fall on my sword for that or admit some sort of wrongdoing, keep waiting. [8\|] But i want to see you fall on your sword [:'(] Try a PBEM against a good Allied player. See if you can counter such gambits without using reverse tactics. Exactly my thoughts. My only problem is the supply generation. If it is tuned off, my opponent may do as he wish, but sending everything from the PI to India to that base because it magically provides them with everything one might think of is nuts. Now fall in the sword, communist mouse!

Ingtar -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:07:35 PM)
I am still learning in this game. However, if you are going to create a Fortress Palembang and the supply generation is what makes it feel morally wrong, can you simply turn off things in the hex and not receive the supplies?

Historiker -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ingtar I am still learning in this game. However, if you are going to create a Fortress Palembang and the supply generation is what makes it feel morally wrong, can you simply turn off things in the hex and not receive the supplies? yep. That's why I propose turning off the refinery on turn one and leave it off.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I still dont understand what all the noise is about. I definitely dont understand what youre expecting to hear. In the 2x2 I'm part of, the Japanese took their sweet time with Palembang. In fact, they took so much time that we moved every Dutch unit in Sumatra to Palembang and built the entrenchment up to 4 (iirc). It took the guys over a month and a huge stack of troops to take it. And when they did, the place (according to communications with them) was completely wrecked. If youre expecting me to fall on my sword for that or admit some sort of wrongdoing, keep waiting. [8\|] But i want to see you fall on your sword [:'(] Try a PBEM against a good Allied player. See if you can counter such gambits without using reverse tactics. Exactly my thoughts. My only problem is the supply generation. If it is tuned off, my opponent may do as he wish, but sending everything from the PI to India to that base because it magically provides them with everything one might think of is nuts. No fall in the sword, communist mouse! Its pretty obvious that no amount of supply is going to allow the Allied player to hold the place against a determined attack with the forces on hand. I say again, we used only the Dutch forces on Sumatra and were given plenty of time for those forces to walk to Palembang from the farthest reaches of the island. If you guys think thats somehow gamey, I'd say that thats a personal problem. It doesnt take a strategic genius to identify Palembang as the only remotely defensible place on the island to concentrate one's forces. [8\|] As for playing Japanese against a good Allied opponent, if you look back, the first line of my first post here was that I have never played as the Japanese and would not do the argument any justice at all if I tried. But as the allied player I can tell you for sure that there is not very much stopping the Japanese player from taking the place.

Nikademus -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo As for playing Japanese against a good Allied opponent, if you look back, the first line of my first post here was that I have never played as the Japanese and would not do the argument any justice at all if I tried. But as the allied player I can tell you for sure that there is not very much stopping the Japanese player from taking the place. [&:] I know. Thats why i said.....play a PBEM as Player one against a good Player two.

aztez -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:21:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I'm only aware of one game in which the Allies drew down on Singapore in order to garrison Palembang: Nemo vs. One-Eyed-Jacks. This is all much ado about nothing. Japan can counter any Fortress Palembang effort. There are also clever ways for Japan to take advantage of a FP effort. (Nemo and Alfred have posted about this at length in various AARs). FP can force Japan to halt what it wants to do in favor of what it has to do, but there's nothing wrong with that. If the Japanese player is alert, he can retake the initiative. If he's not, he's in trouble. Okay, big deal. But claiming this is some kind of major anomoloy because the Allied didn't or couldn't do it? Hah What about Japan hanging around Pearl Harbor and striking for four consecutive days as the OP did in our game? I didn't complain about that because I, as the Allied player, could have taken advantage of that had I had enough experience and smarts. Japan couldn't/wouldn't have done that in real life, so do we have to have a House Rule preventing it? Of course not. Neither is one necessary for FP. One of the beauties of the game is identifying and implementing creative strategies that think "outside the box." That puts us as players most realistically in the seats of commanders who, at the outset of the real war, didn't know that certain areas would be critial. Guadalanal, Point Luck, and Iwo Jima, for instance. Absent some "novelties" introduced into the game, either intentionally or unintentionally, alot of drama and suspese disappears to. I say "bring on the anomalies." IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them! We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map. I do agree mostly agree Canoerebel. It is not even a walk in the park to move reinforcements there if you are playing againts good opponent. Should allied player do it? Yes, definately should reinforce the place and any other key areas to delay the opponent. Should you send 1/2 of your Indian and Oz forces there? No. That is going overboard with the idea. Than again.. we could write a book of such dilemmas. Should there be some random elements in the initial 1st turn where allied side could move few decent units into unknown location. Yes, I think there should be since most of the japanese players practise "1st turn strikes" where they send enough troops to seize the places they want. If there were some random elements than the "unknown" factor would step in and people would play more cautiously. We have seen quite a few AAR's where whole Oz is overrun... India almost overrun.. was that doable in WW2? No, I seriously doubt that. Actually it almost an race to get Oz / India done early and than some. This is basically the same thing as this talk about Fortress Palembang. I wohn't even start about China [:D] ...pretty much every player wants to overrun the place in 1942's... and many have done so by judging through AAR's. Was that possible either? Well.. I doubt that too. What all the above spoils down to is to find proper PBEM partner. Nothing else.. you can write 100 pages of Houserules and it still wohn't work between the players if personalities are not an match.

Chickenboy -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo Its pretty obvious that no amount of supply is going to allow the Allied player to hold the place against a determined attack with the forces on hand. I say again, we used only the Dutch forces on Sumatra and were given plenty of time for those forces to walk to Palembang from the farthest reaches of the island. This limited defense isn't what most people refer to when they talk about "Fortress Palembang", Onime. What you've described here is reasonable, IMO. An extreme "Fortress Palembang", wherein Palembang is reinforced with several IDs from across the commonwealth and is an immediate point of exfiltration of all units from Singapore and Malaya-solely because it produces supplies-is the problem to which we speak. ETA: I do agree with my German colleague about another thing: the interest in watching you fall on your sword. Alternatively, fall on mine, comrade Allied Fanboi! BANZAI! [;)]

Onime No Kyo -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:24:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo As for playing Japanese against a good Allied opponent, if you look back, the first line of my first post here was that I have never played as the Japanese and would not do the argument any justice at all if I tried. But as the allied player I can tell you for sure that there is not very much stopping the Japanese player from taking the place. [&:] I know. Thats why i said.....play a PBEM as Player one against a good Player two. Having been on the receiving end of the early war from several very good Japanese players I know for a fact that ~70% of the key to the Japanese success is operational tempo. Since I have never played as that side, I would not be able to achieve that operational tempo for what I suspect would be at least my 4-5 PBEMs. Which is what I meant by not being able to do the subject justice.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy ETA: I do agree with my German colleague about another thing: the interest in watching you fall on your sword. Alternatively, fall on mine, comrade Allied Fanboi! BANZAI! [;)] I know youre from Palisades and all, but that sounds vaguely homosexual even for you lot. Not that theres anything wrong with that. [:'(]

Chickenboy -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo Having been on the receiving end of...several very good Japanese players ... Yeah. Yer right. At least I didn't say this though. [:'(]

Historiker -> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions (7/9/2012 10:30:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy ETA: I do agree with my German colleague about another thing: the interest in watching you fall on your sword. Alternatively, fall on mine, comrade Allied Fanboi! BANZAI! [;)] I know youre from Palisades and all, but that sounds vaguely homosexual even for you lot. Not that theres anything wrong with that. [:'(] [sm=00001746.gif][:D] I do like my forumbrothers.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625