RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports



Message

larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 5:04:11 AM)

The Allies did an airstrike on my aircraft carrier and here's the results:

[image]local://upfiles/16287/2110ABF12D5248B9A9BD872FB132363B.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 7:42:39 AM)

All that fighting and marching has drained the supply out of Operation Draino. So it's put on hold temporarily so that the units can refuel
and rest. So they are on R and R. I have no idea how they will perform at Port Moresby but I know they need every advantage I can
give them.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/3B3AA45A984841878FF6028489C1B44B.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 8:35:28 AM)

Here's the results of a Jap airfield strike on Port Moresby.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/34499F534EDD45A886F88BFFD060A54E.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 8:39:36 AM)

OK. It's T11 and all my planes are on reorg. D'oh. I guess I'll give the war a day off this turn.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/BF3FC0A2C9FB4A8592D70A7B2112C7A0.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 8:50:59 AM)

Here's an Allied airstrike on my two DD's off-shore near Port Moresby.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/AB7B3D669B5B4C06A689B2B52AA38C76.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 9:12:47 AM)

Elmer tried to convey some troops to Port Moresby from somewhere else and I just happened to have some DD's in it's path and so it
didn't get to it's destination and Elmer left it ON THE HIGH SEAS rather than taking it to a port somewhere. So naturally I have to attack
it.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/740EC2F1E59748A6A9604B532979CB50.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 9:52:56 AM)

With the help of the bombardment from several DD's and several turns of air bombardment I captured Gili Gili finally.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/DE8DD0A331CF47E0B224B93EA4C791A8.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 10:06:26 AM)

I finally got rid of all the Australians near Gili Gili. That frees up lots of units to storm Port Moresby w/.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/6208FE0C256042EE85196ECCFCB16E54.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 10:17:11 AM)

Well, here it is: the last Jap attack of the game. I waited too late to try to storm Port Moresby. D'oh. Oh well.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/25B8E927E8FA4F3DA9AFBB592F5C3434.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 10:21:33 AM)

And there we go. I think this scenario is biased toward the Japanese if only because I won as the Japs and got a draw as the Allies.
I may have to try this scenario as the Allies again just to see if I can do any better now that I know what I know now. Nah.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/5B056CBE6E05423AAF3CB99FFC579E15.gif[/image]



berto -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 6:32:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

One of my readers wanted me to playtest the Papua New Guinea 42 scenario and I thought I'd put some PO objectives and tracks
in there to bring it up to "today's" standards. You know, get it ready for the TOAW version 3.5 playtest whenever that occurs.

I started up the game and turned on the POAssist buttons and lo and behold there's some PO tracks and objectives already in the
game...

[image]local://upfiles/16287/38F6732641C3448D94892982263B21B4.gif[/image]

When I last played this scenario, I played it hot-seat solitaire. The game played out not unlike the actual, historical campaign. (Because I willed it? [8|])

You played against the AI both times. Isn't this scenario marked solo play only? Isn't this scenario's AI, such as it is, rather rudimentary? Based on your earlier expertise and new-found experience with this scenario, are you in a good position now to tweak it?

(And somebody please assure me that, if not in 3.5 then hopefully by 4.0, the naval ops in this scenario -- and other, similar WWII Pacific scenarios -- will be substantially improved. [sm=innocent0001.gif])



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 7:09:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto
When I last played this scenario, I played it hot-seat solitaire. The game played out not unlike the actual, historical campaign. (Because I willed it? )

I get the impression that a lot of the game play in this scenario is free-form and out-of-the-box. There aren't a whole lot of objectives
that can be obtained by the Allies and so they mostly defend in this scenario. This scenario wasn't fun for me. Playing either side.
Maybe the scenario briefing could specify what the objectives are. Come to think of it, even though I'm sure I read the scenario
briefing I'm not sure what it said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto
You played against the AI both times. Isn't this scenario marked solo play only? Isn't this scenario's AI, such as it is, rather rudimentary? Based on your earlier expertise and new-found experience with this scenario, are you in a good position now to tweak it?

This scenario is marked "PBEM only" which means there's no AI for either side. But I opened it and turned on the PO Assist buttons
and found objectives and tracks and everything a scenario would need to play against the PO. But like you've already surmised the
play of this scenario IS rudimentary. I'm not sure different tracks would fix the problems. There's no "front line" for one thing. And
there's no seat-of-the-pants "feel" to this scenario. It's one of the scenario's that probably has ONE GOOD WAY to defeat it and I
just haven't found it yet.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and about my being able to tweak it......um..I'm kinda new at PO objectives and tracks and so I'd have to read up
on using the PO Assist buttons and so on but I think I might just be able to pull it off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto
(And somebody please assure me that, if not in 3.5 then hopefully by 4.0, the naval ops in this scenario -- and other, similar WWII Pacific scenarios -- will be substantially improved.)

Rest assured. I'm not supposed to say a lot about it but the 3.5 version is being revamped so that Naval Ops are really improved.
Scenarios like this one and Olympic '45 and Tarawa will probably see changes in the gameplay.



berto -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/29/2014 8:10:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Rest assured. I'm not supposed to say a lot about it but the 3.5 version is being revamped so that Naval Ops are really improved.
Scenarios like this one and Olympic '45 and Tarawa will probably see changes in the gameplay.

You have time to be a 3.5 beta team member (I presume) in addition to post your without-peer AARs? Do you ever sleep?

If and when TOAW gets a (substantially) better naval model and the land/sea/air scenarios are re-vetted (WWII Pacific, especially), I will return to actively playing TOAW again.* (When will I ever sleep?)

[*VCO under 3.3 remains just fine and dandy. That's still on my playlist.]



fulcrum90 -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 9:15:31 AM)

Great AAR, Larry. Thereīs other good scenario of the same designer, CyberGeneral. Itīs Operation Cartwheel 44. I think itīs one of the best that he has done. take a look if you have time:

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/the-operational-art-of-war-scenario-782-Operation-Cartwheel-44

100% recommendable




larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 10:31:03 AM)

I downloaded the scenario ( thanks for the link.....I would have never found it on my own ) and I appreciate the interest you have in
this scenario. I'm going to playtest it in the near future. The problem is that I'm working on the France '40 scenario right now
and Steve Sill has already sent me the next version of Sicily to Brenner Pass which is the playtest I promised him I would do so
I feel obligated to help him w/ that. So I have Cartwheel '44 on my to-do list and I ask for your patience while I work my way through
the list of things I have to do. And thank you for the suggestion.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/5741845A30E349918CEEB5F713C024AD.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 10:40:44 AM)

I have to admit that the map looks impressive. It's big. Most of it's water.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/A7146708836F49E0A00F35B26916A5F3.gif[/image]



berto -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 11:40:40 AM)


I took a look at this Operation Cartwheel scenario a couple of years ago. Salivated at the prospect. Then remembered how poor TOAW's naval model is. So never played the scenario. My loss, probably.

@fulcrum90: Despite TOAW's deficient naval model, does this scenario still play out plausibly?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 11:59:03 AM)

quote:

(And somebody please assure me that, if not in 3.5 then hopefully by 4.0, the naval ops in this scenario -- and other, similar WWII Pacific scenarios -- will be substantially improved. )


Substantially changed, yes. You can see the intended changes in the What's New for 3.5, which has been posted.

quote:

Operation Cartwheel ... Despite TOAW's deficient naval model, does this scenario still play out plausibly?


I've used Cartwheel a lot to playtest 3.5 features. As I rememeber, Cartwheel has no PO tracks installed, so I had to put some in place in order to test with it.

Sadly, apparently I have a computer issue that has preventing me from using 3.5 for the past couple months, so I've not been able to keep up with the latest changes.



Zovs -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 1:08:14 PM)

Larry,

Dumb question, have you put this scenario up some place or is it still in play test?



fulcrum90 -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 2:14:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto


I took a look at this Operation Cartwheel scenario a couple of years ago. Salivated at the prospect. Then remembered how poor TOAW's naval model is. So never played the scenario. My loss, probably.

@fulcrum90: Despite TOAW's deficient naval model, does this scenario still play out plausibly?


yes, Iīve played it with 3.4 version and with Opart 3XBb and found it very entertaining. It was balanced to give chances to both sides. As US you must to decide where and when send your marines because you sea transport is only increased in some particular turns. As Japanese you must to see where is going US main effort becouse your forces are limited.
BTW, naval warfare is bloody beause you must to move your ships supporting landings. The key is move the ships, support the attacks and retreat they before turns ends..or theyīre lost.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 2:29:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66
Larry,
Dumb question, have you put this scenario up some place or is it still in play test?

I found the scenario in my "Classic TOAW" folder and I haven't made any changes so I'm guessing you've already got it and
just haven't played it yet. I was thinking of installing some supply points but haven't found a good place to put them that they
aren't already there. I haven't found anything to change yet. So fire up your TOAW and have at it and why not do an AAR
so we can keep up w/ your progress. Pictures, we want to see pictures.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 2:33:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
quote:

Operation Cartwheel ... Despite TOAW's deficient naval model, does this scenario still play out plausibly?


I've used Cartwheel a lot to playtest 3.5 features. As I rememeber, Cartwheel has no PO tracks installed, so I had to put some in place in order to test with it.

I was wondering why I had a copy of your CartWheel scenario but it doesn't show up as one of the scenario's to play when you go
to start a game w/ the 3.4 version of TOAW. Your saving it as a 3.5 scenario explains everything. So to do the playtest of Cartwheel I
should use your copy because you have PO tracks in yours and the stock version doesn't have them.



berto -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 5:42:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

...What's New for 3.5, which has been posted

Where?!



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 6:27:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

...What's New for 3.5, which has been posted

Where?!

I think this link might still work:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2531935



berto -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 6:51:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

...What's New for 3.5, which has been posted

Where?!

I think this link might still work:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2531935

That thread only extends up to 3.4?



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 10:02:37 PM)

Hey Berto dude: send me an email........fulkersonlarry60(at)gmail(dot)com and I'll send you the "what's new in 3.5(dot)doc". I'm not sure where I got it but
it's got a date of 2011 if that means anything.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/30/2014 10:21:25 PM)

quote:

So to do the playtest of Cartwheel I should use your copy because you have PO tracks in yours and the stock version doesn't have them.


For what its worth, I looked in my notes for this one and found 'I modified it so I could play the Allied forces against a Japanese PO'.

@Berto - I didn't keep track of where the 3.5 What's New is posted, but when some one tells us, I'll be sure to bookmark it. [;)]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Papua New Guinea 42 revised (1/31/2014 4:46:33 AM)

So um......Steve....This Cartwheel that you modified.......how about I use that to test the new naval rules that the advanced TOAW uses. I'd have to keep
it on the development board since it's going to use the absolutely last and latest version of TOAW and can't be done on the regular boards. That means I'd
be away from all my readers for as long as it takes to test Cartwheel. I have no idea how long that will take. But I'd prefer not long.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.953125