RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (Full Version)

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



Message

DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/24/2018 9:34:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Single ship task forces are easy enough to spot and destroy within the current game mechanics.



Thank you for the reply.
Hopefully I am dispelling a myth of my own making.[:-]




DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (10/24/2018 9:39:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

The Bismark wasn't alone it had the CA Prinz Eugene and those two took out the Hood and damaged the Prince of Wales and old BC, yet the pride of the British prewar fleet and a modern BB.


IIRC Prinz Eugene was split off and Bismark turned South/East to try and make the French coast which is where the stringbags started laying torpedoes. I assume they were also used to track the ship.

How much radar helped the surface ships keep track... I probably need to go back and do some more research.
Thanks for the reply.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/24/2018 9:46:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

I"m pleasured to join this interesting discussion;

to the point: I dont think that the use of "single" ship raider forces by Allies may disrupt in any way the advance of Japan in first months...;

I think the Allied side should be let free to explore/exploit this "tactic" if he feels to;

I'm also in favor to the use of single yard/fishing boats as pickets (that's so realistic), but when this used to "soak" air strike packages (or to expend ammunition and "ops point" from major surface fleets), so then we may enter some "danger zone" but still I would not forbid or ask to from the opposed player; I may think though that he's a "freak"...


In this game we discussed the'fishing boat' defense and have an agreement that xAKs xAKLs without excort can troll out about 15 hexes from the Japanese main island coast.

I agree one or two raiders might only cause disruption of a couple of invasion sites. It it were used across the whole Pacific, then half a dozen or more small but necessary invasions could be twarted, kicking the Japanese time table back a month or more and past the invasion bonus in some cases.

Also this doesn't address the difference in skill between the opponents. A novice could be crippled by an advanced player using this tactic in the early game.

I maybe overly concerned.
Still it is worth discussing and thanks for joining.



mind_messing -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/24/2018 10:27:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

I"m pleasured to join this interesting discussion;

to the point: I dont think that the use of "single" ship raider forces by Allies may disrupt in any way the advance of Japan in first months...;

I think the Allied side should be let free to explore/exploit this "tactic" if he feels to;

I'm also in favor to the use of single yard/fishing boats as pickets (that's so realistic), but when this used to "soak" air strike packages (or to expend ammunition and "ops point" from major surface fleets), so then we may enter some "danger zone" but still I would not forbid or ask to from the opposed player; I may think though that he's a "freak"...


In this game we discussed the'fishing boat' defense and have an agreement that xAKs xAKLs without excort can troll out about 15 hexes from the Japanese main island coast.

I agree one or two raiders might only cause disruption of a couple of invasion sites. It it were used across the whole Pacific, then half a dozen or more small but necessary invasions could be twarted, kicking the Japanese time table back a month or more and past the invasion bonus in some cases.

Also this doesn't address the difference in skill between the opponents. A novice could be crippled by an advanced player using this tactic in the early game.

I maybe overly concerned.
Still it is worth discussing and thanks for joining.



This isn't true. It could thwart a half dozen or so necessary unescorted invasions.

Dividing up the Allied (or Japanese) fleets into single ships to thwart invasions has upsides, but it has it's downsides also. A single DD or CL might do great against an unescorted invasion, but it will be blown out the water by an escorting surface combat task force.

It's a valid tactic, intended to punish players who send out invasion forces without sufficent surface assets to protect it.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/25/2018 4:38:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

This isn't true. It could thwart a half dozen or so necessary unescorted invasions.

Dividing up the Allied (or Japanese) fleets into single ships to thwart invasions has upsides, but it has it's downsides also. A single DD or CL might do great against an unescorted invasion, but it will be blown out the water by an escorting surface combat task force.

It's a valid tactic, intended to punish players who send out invasion forces without sufficent surface assets to protect it.



Which goes into the second point of different skill between players. A more skilled player can spot and interdict those task forces, while a novice is still trying to figure out how to land an invasion force, all the while worrying about the end of the invasion bonus.

Probably back to my 'training wheels' comment -- HRs can be used to balance skill levels as well as force levels.

Closely matched opponents probably need less balancing HRs, but still some to cover the exploits like paying PPs to cross agreed upon boundaries or the egregious Amphib Bombardment exploit. HRs should not be dismissed as a tool to modulate the game to the benefit of both players.

In Chess, a more skilled player will allow the novice the first move or even take off a pawn or a minor piece to balance the match. In Go, the novice player is given x-stone advantage to place anywhere on the board. HRs are a method to handicap as well as address known limits of the game and engine.





Bif1961 -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/25/2018 4:57:56 PM)

It was actually a British PBY with an American pilot on board that spotted and help tract the Bismark until it could be engaged by British aircraft than the final surface battle.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/25/2018 6:44:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

It was actually a British PBY with an American pilot on board that spotted and help tract the Bismark until it could be engaged by British aircraft than the final surface battle.

Thank you.

And in this game, I did get DL from an H6K1 Emily search pilot which helped vector my SCTF to intercept outside their assigned patrol zone.

Encouraging.

I have invested time and PPs in Commander selection for ships and LCUs as well as training and loading pilots into front line squadrons.

So can we summize that in the historic case of the Bismark, land based search assisted in DL while surface units converged. Next, a carrier launched a torpedo strike to slow the raider down. Finally the surface elements engaged to end the battle.

The question is, will I eventually see a carrier launch or land based squadron launch to hit a raider in a PBEM game?




mind_messing -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/26/2018 12:31:20 AM)

quote:

The question is, will I eventually see a carrier launch or land based squadron launch to hit a raider in a PBEM game?


Yes.



Bif1961 -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (10/26/2018 12:52:35 AM)

The Spirit say "Proceed."



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3