RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (Full Version)

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

Message

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/24/2017 9:56:17 PM)
2/9/45 Funnel Cakes: 2nd Marines vs. 5th IJA Division tomorrow, unless the fleeing enemy infantry clear the hex first. Also, tomorrow Death Star will close on Gunzan with strike aircraft and fighters set to handle enemy shipping at Fusan. This is a SigInt-triggered event (see image). LBA will participates in several ways. Fancy Pants: The spearhead is closing on Tsinan. Hong Kong garrison continues to weaken - possibly one week left before extinquishment. The Allies now have 3,600 AV at Canton, including some Brit and Indian units just arrived. Another 500 AV inbound from Wenchow. And the Hong Kong garrison will mostly move to Canton when HK is secured. Nearly all this units are 100% prepped for Canton. Japanese army isolated in China about 150k at present, including 15k at HK and 63k at Canton. The Kukong Pocket has about 46k. [image]local://upfiles/8143/386919F91F3746B69E7CD32F75D4D163.jpg[/image]

JeffroK -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/24/2017 10:06:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Around 1991, I stumbled across this tombstone in an abandoned cemetery in the woodlands now owned by Berry College. This little girl had died on Thanksgiving Day 1917. Today being the centennial of her death, I visited the forgotten cemetery again. For many years after I found the tombstone, I wondered what had happened to the girl, her family, and the community. Over the course of about 15 to 18 years, I gradually found answers to those questions. She was born in 1905 to John and Laura Buchanan, who were textile mill workers in Lindale, Georgia. Laura died in 1912 giving birth to a son, John. The newborn was adopted by Olaf Titrud, a professor of agriculture at the Berry Schools north of Rome. Apparently he and his wife also took in Beulah, from time to time, though I don't think he formally adopted her. On Thanksgiving Day 1917, 12-year-old Beulah was with her young brother at the Titrud house, Pinehaven, when she suddenly went into continuous convulsions. She died within the hour. The next day, she was buried in the cemetery at Central Grove. Over the ensuing years, the community was abandoned, all the structures torn down or destroyed, and nothing left. The cemetery is about 100 yards in the woods on a gated dirt road that nobody except hunters use. I've never found a photo of Beulah. I have seen a photo of her older brother, Paul. If she resembled him, she'd have had wavy, dark blonde hair and blue eyes with a ruddy complexion. But she died that Thanksgiving day, and to my knowledge there's nobody left today to remember her. This photo was made today. I haven't forgotten Beulah Buchanan. [image]local://upfiles/8143/74B6403D46344834B6E4363878169B0E.jpg[/image] As a fellow cemetery visitor I thank you for you story. That's a pretty sad one. Somethimes that kind of research leave me in a funk for a few days I did a few walk through's of old cemeteries in Central Victoria, Avoca area after finding the ancestor who came to OZ (Ships Deserter, no Convict blood here!)died in that area and not the suburbs of Melbourne. You go through the well kept gardens of the recent burials and then hit the "abandoned graves" of those whose famalies have passed on, moved away or who were the end on the bloodline. As an Nation of immigrants there would be many whose families were still in Europe & Great Britain. Headstones for those less than 5 y.o are common, it was a hard life.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/24/2017 10:14:10 PM)
John included this comment in an email yesterday: "Your man-killing ultimate weapons did well today. I don’t have that base…" That comment didn't register until I re-read the email today. I think John is suggesting that the House Rule limiting 4EB strikes against ground units to ground units in base hexes is further limited to Japanese-held bases. This is the first time I've heard of this, although I've engaged in lots of previous missions. The most recent was the planned campaign to "lure" enemy ground units into the Allied-held bases in Coastal China. You may remember that what happened to John's units wasn't pretty. In this case, he advanced 5th Division one hex NW of Fusan to a little base then held by Allied paratroops and two armored battalions. 100+ B-24Js did mighty work against 5th Division the next day. John didn't like it and included that comment. I just wrote him: I received and read one of your emails yesterday, but "Your man-killing ultimate weapons did well today. I don’t have that base…" didn't register until re-reading it this afternoon. Are you suggesting that the House Rule that limits 4EB strikes vs. ground units only if those units are in base hexes is further restricted to 4EB raids only for Japanese-held bases? That wasn't part of the House Rule and wasn't mentioned on previous occasions when my 4EB hit your troops in my base hexes (most recently in coastal China on many occasions). The House Rule specifies that 4EB are to only be used against troops in base hexes. There wasn't a qualifier on the type of base. If you think or know it was different, let's discuss it. I think the idea behind the House Rule was to allow him to provide CAP for ground units on some kind of "fair" basis. In this case, 5th Division is one hex from a level 7 airfield and was covered by several dozen good fighters. He doesn't have an AA in the hex. But he wants to be able to approach an Allied base in clear terrain without any risk that his units will get hit by 4EB. I'm going to miss John as an opponent, but I'm not going to miss House Rule ideas like this one.

DW -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/24/2017 10:28:59 PM)
quote: (Ships Deserter, no Convict blood here!) I read an article a few years ago which stated that it was something of a fad among Aussies to discover if their ancestors had been sent to Australia as convicts. I was amused when it said that the more notorious their ancestors crime, the more prestige it bestowed on their descendants. It wasn't clear on the structure of the hierarchy though. Does a prostitute beat a petty thief...?

JeffroK -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/24/2017 11:09:23 PM)
Most convicts sent out were petty thieves,a lot of people on the First Fleet stole clothing, because the American Revolution stopped the Brits from dumping them there they had to find another spot. My current search is to get a link to 2 crew members on the First Fleet (Marines), common problem, 2 documents, 2 different spellings.

BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/24/2017 11:48:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DW quote: (Ships Deserter, no Convict blood here!) I read an article a few years ago which stated that it was something of a fad among Aussies to discover if their ancestors had been sent to Australia as convicts. I was amused when it said that the more notorious their ancestors crime, the more prestige it bestowed on their descendants. It wasn't clear on the structure of the hierarchy though. Does a prostitute beat a petty thief...? Alas, petty thieves usually beat prostitutes ...[:(]

jwolf -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 12:45:40 AM)
If John thinks he should be able to move large ground units out of Japanese bases with no air attacks, that seems very strange. I can understand his irritation with the results, but what was he expecting? Looking forward to some major air action at Fusan. That could be really interesting.

BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 4:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwolf If John thinks he should be able to move large ground units out of Japanese bases with no air attacks, that seems very strange. I can understand his irritation with the results, but what was he expecting? Looking forward to some major air action at Fusan. That could be really interesting. There is an opinion among many IJ players that the effect of 4EBs doing ground bombing in open terrain is greatly exaggerated over RL results. I am no expert but I think it is exaggerated for troops dug into foxholes anywhere, but perhaps not for marching troops. IRL the 4EB were usually used in strategic bombing role hitting fixed facilities from high altitude, but if they were allowed to go low level (10K or less) and hit troops marching in open terrain the sheer number of bombs would have massive concussion effect, even for troops laying flat. The only counters are good fighter CAP and good AA to spoil the bombers aim. John did not provide either.

JohnDillworth -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 10:16:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: jwolf If John thinks he should be able to move large ground units out of Japanese bases with no air attacks, that seems very strange. I can understand his irritation with the results, but what was he expecting? Looking forward to some major air action at Fusan. That could be really interesting. There is an opinion among many IJ players that the effect of 4EBs doing ground bombing in open terrain is greatly exaggerated over RL results. I am no expert but I think it is exaggerated for troops dug into foxholes anywhere, but perhaps not for marching troops. IRL the 4EB were usually used in strategic bombing role hitting fixed facilities from high altitude, but if they were allowed to go low level (10K or less) and hit troops marching in open terrain the sheer number of bombs would have massive concussion effect, even for troops laying flat. The only counters are good fighter CAP and good AA to spoil the bombers aim. John did not provide either. quote: There is an opinion among many IJ players that the effect of 4EBs doing ground bombing in open terrain is greatly exaggerated over RL results. I am no expert but I think it is exaggerated for troops dug into foxholes anywhere, but perhaps not for marching troops. IRL the 4EB were usually used in strategic bombing role hitting fixed facilities from high altitude, but if they were allowed to go low level (10K or less) and hit troops marching in open terrain the sheer number of bombs would have massive concussion effect, even for troops laying flat. The only counters are good fighter CAP and good AA to spoil the bombers aim. John did not provide either. Where do we start with things that are "greatly exaggerated over RL results"? Japanese aircraft production, research? A dozen "extra" CV's? Japanese ASW ability?. Big long list before we get to 4EB on troop action

BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 12:31:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: jwolf If John thinks he should be able to move large ground units out of Japanese bases with no air attacks, that seems very strange. I can understand his irritation with the results, but what was he expecting? Looking forward to some major air action at Fusan. That could be really interesting. There is an opinion among many IJ players that the effect of 4EBs doing ground bombing in open terrain is greatly exaggerated over RL results. I am no expert but I think it is exaggerated for troops dug into foxholes anywhere, but perhaps not for marching troops. IRL the 4EB were usually used in strategic bombing role hitting fixed facilities from high altitude, but if they were allowed to go low level (10K or less) and hit troops marching in open terrain the sheer number of bombs would have massive concussion effect, even for troops laying flat. The only counters are good fighter CAP and good AA to spoil the bombers aim. John did not provide either. quote: There is an opinion among many IJ players that the effect of 4EBs doing ground bombing in open terrain is greatly exaggerated over RL results. I am no expert but I think it is exaggerated for troops dug into foxholes anywhere, but perhaps not for marching troops. IRL the 4EB were usually used in strategic bombing role hitting fixed facilities from high altitude, but if they were allowed to go low level (10K or less) and hit troops marching in open terrain the sheer number of bombs would have massive concussion effect, even for troops laying flat. The only counters are good fighter CAP and good AA to spoil the bombers aim. John did not provide either. Where do we start with things that are "greatly exaggerated over RL results"? Japanese aircraft production, research? A dozen "extra" CV's? Japanese ASW ability?. Big long list before we get to 4EB on troop action Yes, it is a whole can of worms if you try to get RL results and still have a "balanced" game. Personally, I would suggest a little less accuracy in the bomb laying algorithm rather than throttling the Allied player choices. After all, no one had perfect knowledge of wind velocities and direction at the time of bombing, and at all altitudes twixt aircraft and ground. I think the accuracy can be tweaked in the editor by calling up the 500 lb bomb device. Of course that means creating a whole new scenario with just the one change!

Andav -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 1:59:54 PM)
If John does not want his troops bombed, he should do something to make CR stop or do something to defend them. He should also be thankful those B-24s are bombing troops and not his cities or ports or somewhere else. There are trade offs for all tactics. Allied infantry at this stage of the war can more then hold their own against the IJA even without air support. It is a tough pill to swallow for the Japanese player. Wa

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 2:39:23 PM)
The House Rule provided that 4EB could only be used against ground troops in base hexes. I took it as meaning just that - base hexes, with no qualification on who owned the base. This used to be a common house rule. Did players see it routinely the way that John does? If John does suddenly see it that way (he didn't before, when this took place in China), this suddenly gives him another free pass. He can move his troops forward without AA protection, thus keeping his AA concentrated against strategic bombing. That was the same unintended benefit of the "no strategic bombing until 1944 rule" - he didn't have to protect his oil-producing centers like Palembang, thus freeing up his fighters to fight forward. There's no doubt the House Rules were written in John's favor. There's no doubt I agreed to them. But I didn't agree to what he's now putting forth. And ambiguities in a "contract" are construed against the drafter (a common rule of American jurisprudence). So unless John makes a compelling case that this was indeed the rule - either expressly or as universally interpreted by the community, I won't concede it.

witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 4:13:26 PM)
I don't recall being a common house rule.

BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 5:42:19 PM)
Mostly the house rules to reduce the IJ player sense of helplessness was just to rule no bombing below 10K for 4EB except naval bombers on naval strike. When AA was made more potent in a recent patch most Allied players seem to feel that was deterrent enough to do away with the rule. It's up to the IJ player to keep some AA with his infantry. I think John put most of it in his cities.

crsutton -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/25/2017 9:03:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel John included this comment in an email yesterday: "Your man-killing ultimate weapons did well today. I don’t have that base…" That comment didn't register until I re-read the email today. I think John is suggesting that the House Rule limiting 4EB strikes against ground units to ground units in base hexes is further limited to Japanese-held bases. This is the first time I've heard of this, although I've engaged in lots of previous missions. The most recent was the planned campaign to "lure" enemy ground units into the Allied-held bases in Coastal China. You may remember that what happened to John's units wasn't pretty. In this case, he advanced 5th Division one hex NW of Fusan to a little base then held by Allied paratroops and two armored battalions. 100+ B-24Js did mighty work against 5th Division the next day. John didn't like it and included that comment. I just wrote him: I received and read one of your emails yesterday, but "Your man-killing ultimate weapons did well today. I don’t have that base…" didn't register until re-reading it this afternoon. Are you suggesting that the House Rule that limits 4EB strikes vs. ground units only if those units are in base hexes is further restricted to 4EB raids only for Japanese-held bases? That wasn't part of the House Rule and wasn't mentioned on previous occasions when my 4EB hit your troops in my base hexes (most recently in coastal China on many occasions). The House Rule specifies that 4EB are to only be used against troops in base hexes. There wasn't a qualifier on the type of base. If you think or know it was different, let's discuss it. I think the idea behind the House Rule was to allow him to provide CAP for ground units on some kind of "fair" basis. In this case, 5th Division is one hex from a level 7 airfield and was covered by several dozen good fighters. He doesn't have an AA in the hex. But he wants to be able to approach an Allied base in clear terrain without any risk that his units will get hit by 4EB. I'm going to miss John as an opponent, but I'm not going to miss House Rule ideas like this one. I see his argument and it is what my opponent and I do. Our HR is different in that we do not allow 4E bombing in open terrain. All other hexes are game. However enemy bases in open terrain are fair game because he has the chance to fortify then and protect them with his own fighters. But enemy units attacking an Allied base in open terrain would be off limits to 4Es because they are in open terrain and would not get any defensive benefit from the base.

waihi -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/26/2017 3:15:48 AM)
As one who has played the game since it first came out, but Seldom post, I am finally doing so in frustration. As others have posted in the past there is fantasy aircraft production for Japan, and in this scenario fantasy’s ships, to complain about the effects of bombing troops by heavy bombers in RL is a bit absurd. The reality is that if this happened This late in the war the unit would not have been able to make the move and remain an effective unit. I have lived for a number of years in Korea, and the terrain channels movement into restricted corridors. With Allied air superiority the fighter bombers would have done a much better job than the heavies, but this is not modelled. I think John was lucky to get that result, especially with no AA. As the Germans knew, moving large formations under Allied air superiority is a recipe for disaster. While I am here, Dan I really appreciate your AAR, with the different time zones, it is good read over breakfast in the morning. You have done a great job. This will wrap up shortly, but will be missed.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/26/2017 4:44:42 AM)
Thanks, waihi. I'm glad you enjoy the AAR. This game is so complex and has gone so deep that sometimes it leaves me and John a bit breathless and uncertain. Things I think are perfectly reasonable may irk him and vice versa. We started with house rules not knowing how they might impact the game, especially mid- and late-game. Both of us are modestly experienced, longtime players who have a decent feel for the game but not exhaustive. We aren't "beneath the hood guys." Well, I'm not. And I don't think John is either. But we've made it a long way, despite occasional irritations and setbacks. John deserves (and I think is getting from the community) a lot of encouragement for staying in the saddle. It's been a fun ride. Let's see how it ends.

paullus99 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/26/2017 5:00:54 PM)
I always find your conversations with John to be very interesting. He doesn't seem to care that the Allied player has to suffer through about 2 years of living hell - he's lucky to have found you as an opponent.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/26/2017 7:08:33 PM)
2/10/45 It's rare to post without pictures, but I'll do so for this turn. The overall flow of the turn was much the same - the Allies moving forward. But within that flow were several irritating hiccups or misfires. Strategic Bombing: A moderate number of B-29s find little CAP over Niigata but somehow fail to score a single hit! Daylight. 2,000 feet. Zero hits. Augh! Funnel Cakes: Death Star takes station near Gunzan. The plan was to strike decisively at enemy shipping brining reinforcements to Fusan. Instead, hundreds of fighters and a handful of strike aircraft sorties vs. shipping here, there, everywhere....scoring no hits and losing a modest number of aircraft (Allied fighters in escort roles...Yuck!). I should have tinkered with search arcs, ala Lowpe, so that the aircraft would focus narrowly on Fusan...but instead I'm scrubbing this little offensive action. I'm pretty sure John will be attacking soon, so I'm better off focusing on defense than trying to pull inside straits with attacks. On the ground, 2nd Marine Division shock attacks and pushes 5th IJA Div. back. I might as well allow John to bring as much infantry to Korea as he wants and then punish those units there. If I let him he will come. If he comes he will pay. Fancy Pants: In the north, the Allied advance on Tsinan continues in good order. Two Chinese corps eliminated an IJA mixed brigade in the central area. In the south, reduction work continues at Hong Kong. John III: He is waging an intense war against flagging morale, I think. THat's what I meant when his SoPac raid began to wind down - his level of interest flags considerably when he's not working a fun angle. He must be fighting every instinct he has in trying to work up the resolve to attack Death Star and the Allied forces in Korea. He has a chance to do something but far more likely he'll lose a lot. He's having a hard time brining himself to do it. Turnaround time on turns has slowed to a crawl.

crsutton -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/26/2017 8:37:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paullus99 I always find your conversations with John to be very interesting. He doesn't seem to care that the Allied player has to suffer through about 2 years of living hell - he's lucky to have found you as an opponent. Well, the Allied player does have to feel some pain, but it does not come close to the pain that the Japanese player is feeling in 1945. Actually, as an Allied player, 1942 and 43 are the most fun and interesting years for me. After that, the game starts to grow a little boring.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/26/2017 8:50:51 PM)
That's the genius of the game's victory point system. Right now Japan is getting clobbered militarily but is still waging a tenacious struggle for victory points. From that aspect, the game is just as exciting as it was in '42 and '43, perhaps even more so. It's far more challenging than it was then, because the Allied OOB is much more immense, as are the logistical challenges. I'm spending much more time with each turn and enjoying even aspect of the game. There's magic in the victory point system.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 6:20:36 AM)
I think waihi makes a solid point: Fighter-bombers are not properly modeled in this game. Plus, there's the opportunity cost of using B-24s against ground forces and not industrial targets in the homeland. Regarding the movement of IJA forces to Fusan, J3 could be thinking he might be able to pull off another Sumatra or Celebes victory. I would encourage that thinking. Your botched DS intervention may actually pay off in causing him to think you're worried. Cheers, CC P.S. Moving thoughts on the short life of Beaulah Buchanan. Much appreciated.

adarbrauner -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 8:59:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel John included this comment in an email yesterday: "Your man-killing ultimate weapons did well today. I don’t have that base…" That comment didn't register until I re-read the email today. I think John is suggesting that the House Rule limiting 4EB strikes against ground units to ground units in base hexes is further limited to Japanese-held bases. This is the first time I've heard of this, although I've engaged in lots of previous missions. The most recent was the planned campaign to "lure" enemy ground units into the Allied-held bases in Coastal China. You may remember that what happened to John's units wasn't pretty. In this case, he advanced 5th Division one hex NW of Fusan to a little base then held by Allied paratroops and two armored battalions. 100+ B-24Js did mighty work against 5th Division the next day. John didn't like it and included that comment. I just wrote him: I received and read one of your emails yesterday, but "Your man-killing ultimate weapons did well today. I don’t have that base…" didn't register until re-reading it this afternoon. Are you suggesting that the House Rule that limits 4EB strikes vs. ground units only if those units are in base hexes is further restricted to 4EB raids only for Japanese-held bases? That wasn't part of the House Rule and wasn't mentioned on previous occasions when my 4EB hit your troops in my base hexes (most recently in coastal China on many occasions). The House Rule specifies that 4EB are to only be used against troops in base hexes. There wasn't a qualifier on the type of base. If you think or know it was different, let's discuss it. I think the idea behind the House Rule was to allow him to provide CAP for ground units on some kind of "fair" basis. In this case, 5th Division is one hex from a level 7 airfield and was covered by several dozen good fighters. He doesn't have an AA in the hex. But he wants to be able to approach an Allied base in clear terrain without any risk that his units will get hit by 4EB. I'm going to miss John as an opponent, but I'm not going to miss House Rule ideas like this one. There's been a big deal of discussion in John's AAR around the effectiveness of supposed CAS by heavy bombers, where the opinions have been discussed in length an supported by historical arguments and material (very interesting as you shall read it, in the future). Briefly, there has been lot of thinking and confrontations between players and forum members on it. I came out, again after deep reflections on overall game mechanics and historical reports on carpet bombing on ground troops, particularly in Normandy campaign, with the conviction that the heavies should not be used to "blind" carpet bombing of ground troops in game, unless from lower heights; the reasoning behind it is that carpet bombing, again, is "blind", done over a pretty restricted area (say, roughly a mile square) where the pilots have no sight at all of enemy units. They just bomb the well defined area - to utter hell - they were briefed to to bomb. Whatever in that area, is either obliterated (British and Americans brought 800, 1000, 1150 heavy bombers on it...), or completely disabled. IF is there. If the intelligence war right. If enemy units targeted have not moved away meanwhile. Besides, to raise the effectiveness of this carpet bombing the sides at times, namely the US Army, requested bombing of positions as close as possible to the front line and to friendly units. Because of caveats by the air force in the safe way to approach the front line, this resulted many times in particularly painful friendly losses and fire, up to the point to drive the ground commanders to distaste this form of bombing. As a consequence me personally, in my game, use and request the use by the opponent of ground bombing, either Japanese or allied, either by light or heavy bombers, not higher than the altitude from where the pilots may have a chance to spot the targets on the ground - let's say, not higher that 6-7000 feet? . A compromise. To be noted also that the lower the bombers, the greater should be, hopefully, their vulnerability to AA fire... Incidentally, many, including the opposed to indiscriminate carpet bombing in game, has critisized, or at least noticed to John, that he did not much to defend his units from this well known and hanging over menace, namely with more concentrated AA (if at all in the case of John), or fighters.

paullus99 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 10:49:20 AM)
Sometimes the game mechanics just are what they are...if John isn't protecting his troops from nearly unlimited air bombardment (by LRCAP or AA), then he gets what he deserves.

ny59giants -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 11:55:59 AM)
In my phone calls with John, I sense his heart and mind are already with his new game playing latest BTS version that is due to begin around Christmas time. In this game, he is just going through the motions. Without an invasion of Japan itself, I don't see his mindset changing.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 1:53:39 PM)
John is fighting several morale battles. The first is the inevitable letdown following his SoPac raid (he loves raiding). The second is the prospect of committing his beloved navy in an unfavorable environment when I know he's likely to come (he loves raiding, not fighting set-piece battles at poor odds in places he didn't choose). The third is he's probably a bit of a control freak. If that's the case, he doesn't want the game to end on any terms but his. So he's either going to Banzai with his navy, ending it decisively...or he's going to drag things out for seventeen moons, with turns coming sporadically and possibly him conceding before Auto Victory is reached.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 2:05:28 PM)
2/11/45 Strategic Air War: A small daytime raid vs. Niigata at 2k finds no opposition to speak of and fails to score. Hmmm. What's this latest wrinkle in the air war? Tonight, Superforts to hit Gifu Frank and Tony factories at 7k with Liberators to hit Shimonoseki Resources at 7k. Funnel Cakes: John has massed a decent army at Keijo. He attacks the Allied armored units newly bolstered by 1st Cavalry Div., which arrives in Move mode. The result is an Allied victory. John's going to have a tough time dealing decisively with the Allied invasion of Korea, undercutting the boasts he was making on the eve of the invasion. Most importantly, Gunzan aifield to level 4.85. Death Star is buttoned up and awaiting an enemy onslaught, if John pulls the trigger. 50% chance he awaits arrival of KB East, way down in the Solomons. Fancy Pants: Hong Kong defenses collapse today. The final unit should be eliminated tomorrow. Canton will come next. Real War Map: The December 1991 issue of National Geographic included a fabulous map of World War II - ETO on one side, PTO on the other. The PTO map shows the territory held by Japan at the end of the war. To my surprise, I've far exceeded the actual territorial gains by the Allies in the real war...and did a long time ago. In the game, the Allied positions in China, Korea, Indochina, Thailand, Burma, Malaya, and the eastern DEI are far, far beyond what the Allies achieved. Borneo, the Philippines, and western New Guinea are roughly equal. John has an edge in the Solomons, New Britain, north New Guinea coast, the western Aleutians, and the Ryukus. This was eye-opening to me. In the past, I recall so many games in which I was "behind" the actual Allied operations in the real war. Here I'm far, far ahead. The difference is that the Japanese navy and air forces are not yet battered beyond putting up effective opposition. There's still hard fighting to come. But I'm doing pretty darn well. And that reminds me of something I said post-Sumatra: that the Allies wouldn't be able to conquer everything, given troops losses at that time, but that they would be able to conquer enough to win the game. [image]local://upfiles/8143/6293B5032AA245DE99F5A1BD6E350390.jpg[/image]

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 2:38:11 PM)
If I'm reading ardbrauner's comments correctly, he's advocating a House Rule limiting 4EB to lower than 10k? That's interesting, because John previously and belatedly tried to say that his house rule limited 4EB to 10k and above. (There were no altitude restrictions on 4EB use, but I have voluntarily kept most of my 4EB at 10k since he made that request). John's hands aren't tied here. He has lots of AA. But most of those units are defending Home Islands industrial targets. It would be nice for him if he didn't have to commit them to frontline infantry defense or to make tough choices in allocating AA.

paullus99 -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 2:56:59 PM)
He's protecting all of the wrong spots - his ground units might stand a bit of a chance, if you didn't have complete control of the air (and his general lack of AA in the field). His desire to try to kill your units is putting him in the position of attacking fresh troops, under significant air cover - which, at this stage of the war, isn't anywhere near a winning strategy. I am reminded of Sherman's strategy of forcing the Rebels to attack him, in prepared position, rather than the other way around. John bleeds good troops & then loses them to the inevitable counterattack. As you, I suspect he's going to try to commit the bulk of his remaining surface forces - but at this point, it won't really do much, since it won't disrupt your invasion of Korea (which already happened) & any ships of his which get crippled, will be forced to go back to shipyards well within range of everything you have to throw at them.

Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/27/2017 3:02:29 PM)
To this point, I haven't attacked his shipyards. All of them are in range now, and I think he has a lot of his ships disbanded in port with big airfields and stout CAP. When Gunzan airfield is ready for offensive operations - perhaps ten more days - that'll open up the air war considerably; strategic bombing and port bombing should increase significantly.

Page: << < prev 435 436 [437] 438 439 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.363281