USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (Full Version)

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



Message

LLT0407 -> USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 4:51:42 PM)

One thing I have never agreed with is ANY USA in the burma/malaya/dei especially at the beginning of the war or running and hiding after Pearl Harbor.. the United States would have NEVER done that... This is gaming the game..

I commend all the players that do not do that!!



Yaab -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 5:26:29 PM)

Preach it, brother!



USSAmerica -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 5:41:21 PM)

[:D]



GetAssista -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 6:05:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

[:D]

Maybe USA won't run, but USSAmerica certainly will [:D]



HansBolter -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 6:35:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLT0407

One thing I have never agreed with is ANY USA in the burma/malaya/dei especially at the beginning of the war or running and hiding after Pearl Harbor.. the United States would have NEVER done that... This is gaming the game..

I commend all the players that do not do that!!



Obviously doesn't understand that it's a GAME not an attempt to recreate history.

If it was an attempt to recreate history, the Japanese side would NOT have been beefed up to make it more viable as a side to play in a GAME.

This beefing up allows for Japan to expand way beyond historical limits in places like India and Australia and completely conquer China.

All of this is what leads Allied side players to deploy American units to Burma and retreat in the face of overwhelming superiority to preserve as much force as possible.

Making accusations against Allied side players of 'gaming the game' because they are reacting to the capabilities of the overpowered Japanese side shows how little you understand the Game. [8|]



Yaab -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 6:40:56 PM)

In the WIiTP:AE calendar , the Ichi-Go operation starts on 7 December 1941.



BillBrown -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 6:51:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLT0407

One thing I have never agreed with is ANY USA in the burma/malaya/dei especially at the beginning of the war or running and hiding after Pearl Harbor.. the United States would have NEVER done that... This is gaming the game..

I commend all the players that do not do that!!



Obviously doesn't understand that it's a GAME not an attempt to recreate history.

If it was an attempt to recreate history, the Japanese side would NOT have been beefed up to make it more viable as a side to play in a GAME.

This beefing up allows for Japan to expand way beyond historical limits in places like India and Australia and completely conquer China.

All of this is what leads Allied side players to deploy American units to Burma and retreat in the face of overwhelming superiority to preserve as much force as possible.

Making accusations against Allied side players of 'gaming the game' because they are reacting to the capabilities of the overpowered Japanese side shows how little you understand the Game. [8|]


This is certainly one of the things that Hans and I agree on. If a Japanese player wants the Allies to do what they did in the real war, then Japan needs to do the same, like lose 4 CVs at Midway.



joliverlay -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 6:54:20 PM)

Please recall that the pilot losses for Japan at Pearl Harbor and Coral Sea exceeded their new pilot training output for more than a year. IF I recall the original game had historical pilot replacements for Japan, and that was quickly changed because so few would actually play the game as Japan if it was historical. So it is unfair (BS?) to characterize any Allied response to ahistorical Japanese pilot and aircraft replacements as being gamey or wrong. If you want the Allied to live with the historical constraints, the Japanese player should do so as well, and it has been pretty much decided almost no one would play the Japanese side in such a game. The Japanese position in the game as done is so totally beyond historical, a comparison between the actual US response in history a completely different game situation is an applies and oranges comparison. Had Japan had much more military capability than they actually did, it is quite possible the US would have responded quite differently than it did in any number of ways, including not being nearly as surprised at Pearl Harbor or Clark Field.



LLT0407 -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 6:58:06 PM)

first of all do not say I do not know the game... This is an observation..

I just think it is ridiculous.. at least I know the buddy I know that played from online games and when I played the allies vs him I agreed to have no usa in india before 44.. and of course you would not just be stupid with your cv's

I know 2 guys that played against scot donovan was aggressive and he lost some cv's near rabaul and dei..
I will remember him saying on on the aar something like it is early 42 but it feels like 44 lol..

and I have played the allies.. you do not need to bring usa over to india..suck it up




GetAssista -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 7:41:52 PM)

So many "would have NEVER done that" to track... Like coordinating IJA and IJN, Chinese communists and Kuomintang, changing Japanese naval doctrine wrt escorts and sub usage, training Japanese ASW and fighter pilots from the get go, plane R&D without all the mishaps, no garrisons on Chinese road hexes. And the list goes on...

Play the game like you like, don't tell others to play the particular way. This is for PBEM terms negotiations



RogerJNeilson -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 8:02:27 PM)

Fee foe fi fum, do I smell a Troll somewhere?

Roger



obvert -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 8:22:11 PM)

@OP

Who ... cares?



LLT0407 -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/20/2019 11:45:15 PM)

you are actually right about that.. one of my main house rules with US in India



spence -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 12:03:59 AM)

quote:

you are actually right about that.. one of my main house rules with US in India



Well I did check to see if you'd want to try the Big B Mod where you'll also be blessed with 4 years of real stalemate in China and American torpedoes that lose some of their impotence considerably earlier than "the vanilla game" allows. Apparently not



dasboot1960 -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 2:27:49 AM)

So here I am, a less experienced player, but very familiar with history. I see all this talk of house rules, and I must ask. Does one side benefit more with NO house rules? I accept as a given that that the IJ forces in Manchuria shouldn't be able to waltz off in to China without paying admin costs. I'm just getting to restart as IJ in a game where opponent found a restart more viable than continuation. (his first game, hats off, Kelly!). I have asked him to allow PDU on this time, but also have imposed 'no IJ bombing of China industry till 1944'. I did bomb last time, but I didn't gang it up, and really have no idea of the overall effect outside of realizing the Chinese must have no hope of repairing any of that damage early on.

So given the general house rules I see around, are they driven by game balance or some desire for a more 'historical' play through? Who thinks what?



Ian R -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 5:10:51 AM)

Just as a matter of interest, Mr Francillon says total build numbers of the significant IJN ship-board strike aircraft were (prototypes, training models and trials aircraft omitted where identified):

D3A Val - 1486
B5N Kate - 1146 (This figure includes the pre-war -1 models that had been replaced by -2 before 7 December 41)

D4Y Judy - 2033 (Includes some completed as night fighters)
B6N Jill - 1264

B7A2 Grace - 104 - and only flown by two Kokutais.

When I finished my recent ironman 3 campaign the IJN had in pools, plus "used so far" (so whatever arrived for free would need to be added, less any pre-war losses)

Vals - 504 (because the Judy and arrives on time and replaces it)

Kates - 376 (and only about 80 used, because the Jill arrives on time)

Judys - 9125 (and about 200 night fighter types)

Jills - 2759

Graces - 6351

Does a human player running the IJ economy well produce those sort of numbers (in the order of a 300% improvement over historical)?

Those numbers are in April 1947 with everything west of Tokyo occupied by the "UN", and bombing probably minimised IJ airframe production in about September 46.



PaxMondo -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 5:43:09 AM)

"If I were King …"

The ability for the player to control the IJ economy allows you to play the "king" role. It is great fun. IRL, the IJ was incredibly inefficient for a large number of reasons and the player can sweep all that aside. Without this little "treasure trove" there simply wouldn't be a game.

Hindsight favors the allies more than the IJ I believe. All the IJ gets from hindsight that he can't possibly survive the deluge of 45 without huge early successes but IRL the IJ already knew that. What kept the war going until '45 was two fold: the allied primary goal of Europe, and then the unknown of IJ forces. Nimitz wasn't positive that the IJ could NOT replace the Midway losses: players know that as absolute fact. Hindsight removes this unknown and its a big deal in the game.



Alfred -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 10:00:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dasboot1960

... Does one side benefit more with NO house rules? ...


Yes, the better player.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 10:06:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

... What kept the war going until '45 was two fold: the allied primary goal of Europe, and then the unknown of IJ forces. Nimitz wasn't positive that the IJ could NOT replace the Midway losses: players know that as absolute fact. Hindsight removes this unknown and its a big deal in the game.


The third factor is the Allied political concern for domestic public opinion which forced methodical operations aimed t minimising Allied casualties. A consideration which many players comp0letely disregard.

Alfred



HansBolter -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 11:36:32 AM)

What about the hindsight of the Japanese player KNOWING how weak the Allies are everywhere and how possible it is to succeed with an invasion of Australia and or New Zealand, something the IJA would never have agreed to?

What about the hindsight of the Japanese player KNOWING the Allies have no fighters in Australia allowing for an early strategic bombing campaign to run up victory points?

What about the 'having nothing to do with hindsight' knowledge of the Japanese player that the game structure allows for China to be completely conquered with the right concentration of force?

All I am saying here is that the 'hindsight' door swings both ways and familiarity with what the game structure does and doesn't allow counts for just as much, if not more than hindsight.

The GAME simply has far too many variables for it to ever be capable of recreating history.



Macclan5 -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 1:26:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LLT0407

One thing I have never agreed with is ANY USA in the burma/malaya/dei especially at the beginning of the war or running and hiding after Pearl Harbor.. the United States would have NEVER done that... This is gaming the game..

I commend all the players that do not do that!!



Inflammatory post.

Read history. Look up Claire Lee Chennault - where he operated - what his career was.

I do not think this is worthy of debate



Yaab -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 1:29:01 PM)


I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Sherman tanks manufactured in Calcutta slums. Botanko Heavy Arty Regiment traversing the Kokoda Track. Glittering B-29s pounding enemy trenches at 100 feet. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.



Buckrock -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 1:41:59 PM)

Yaab, I think the game is making you Batty.



Kursk1943 -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 2:18:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Sherman tanks manufactured in Calcutta slums. Botanko Heavy Arty Regiment traversing the Kokoda Track. Glittering B-29s pounding enemy trenches at 100 feet. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.


Sounds like the famous last words of Rutger Hauer in "Blade Runner".



geofflambert -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 3:20:44 PM)

If you are the Allied player you are nuts if you don't send engineers to the IO. Besides them, much of your infantry will be sitting on it's hands doing nothing because you won't have the infrastructure available to land them somewhere useful and support them. Finally, you need to send some USAAF there and at some point USN air (to operate off of UK carriers. Domestic resistance will melt away when you start having victories and make some aces. My rule is no USMC (land or air) in the IO. If I'm going to put in the trouble to play this game I am NOT going to make the same mistakes as were made historically. Anything else is BS. Same for the Japanese side. I will determine what is possible and plan from there. If you want to jo to the ugliest chick you can think of go right ahead. I'll go with Sophia Loren.



Chickenboy -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 3:42:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Sherman tanks manufactured in Calcutta slums. Botanko Heavy Arty Regiment traversing the Kokoda Track. Glittering B-29s pounding enemy trenches at 100 feet. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

[:D]



rustysi -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/21/2019 4:54:47 PM)

quote:

The ability for the player to control the IJ economy allows you to play the "king" role. It is great fun. IRL, the IJ was incredibly inefficient for a large number of reasons and the player can sweep all that aside. Without this little "treasure trove" there simply wouldn't be a game.


Nicely said Pax. Its the only reason to play Japan.

I'd like to add that there are certain things that may make it even more difficult for a Allied player. First off, it he/she is the weaker player. Second, if playing a mod or scenario that favors Japan. Last but not least is a non-historical start. That's correct, and how I look at it. Its not so much what Japan can or can't destroy with a non-historical start, it that she gains a much better position to begin the war with the 'magic move'. So with that said I intend my games (if ever I do get to PBEM) to be Scen1 historical start. JMHO. YMMV.

As for whether someone plays a game where they run at start (a Sir Robbin) or stands and fight, I couldn't care less. Both have pluses and minuses.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/22/2019 6:17:15 AM)

Yaab: Good one, my friend. Trying not to LOL in an open office environment.

And, like everyone else so far, let me state that the original premise of this thread is way off base. This is a game and I'll send my forces where I want. That said, if your PBEM opponent agrees to such restrictions, then have fun.

Cheers,
CB



castor troy -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/22/2019 1:53:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Just as a matter of interest, Mr Francillon says total build numbers of the significant IJN ship-board strike aircraft were (prototypes, training models and trials aircraft omitted where identified):

D3A Val - 1486
B5N Kate - 1146 (This figure includes the pre-war -1 models that had been replaced by -2 before 7 December 41)

D4Y Judy - 2033 (Includes some completed as night fighters)
B6N Jill - 1264

B7A2 Grace - 104 - and only flown by two Kokutais.

When I finished my recent ironman 3 campaign the IJN had in pools, plus "used so far" (so whatever arrived for free would need to be added, less any pre-war losses)

Vals - 504 (because the Judy and arrives on time and replaces it)

Kates - 376 (and only about 80 used, because the Jill arrives on time)

Judys - 9125 (and about 200 night fighter types)

Jills - 2759

Graces - 6351

Does a human player running the IJ economy well produce those sort of numbers (in the order of a 300% improvement over historical)?

Those numbers are in April 1947 with everything west of Tokyo occupied by the "UN", and bombing probably minimised IJ airframe production in about September 46.



whenever I've played the IJ into late years (PBEM) my total output of aircraft was smaller than real life output. Difference is of course what I was building but total number of aircraft never came close to real life numbers. What gives pumping out tens of tousands of aircraft when your pilot pool is already empty in 42 if you use those pool pilots in training units. If you get some 1500 Navy pilots a year, why building 5000 IJN aircraft/year. It's all about the pilots as the Japanese. When the pool is empty, it's empty. 15,000 Judies and Graces would need the pilot output of 10 years in a war/game that lasts 4 or 5 at best. I'm just leaving ground losses and surviving pilots aside.



Alpha77 -> RE: USA hides or Runs to India.. what BS (11/22/2019 3:43:34 PM)

Pretty funny using AI production numbers in a "phantasy" mod... donīt ya know the AI makes planes from thin air?[;)] Also while we are at Blade Runner can not someone make a SF mod ? There the Japanese could have real "death stars" and tie fighters as well some obsolete stuff like nuclear attack subs and Leo 2A6 tanks[8D]

However IIRC when I opened the Japanese side in a past AI game vs. them I found 10000 or so fighters in their pool (most of them not the latest)..

One of the bigger problems with the game I mean historic scen1 is still the overabundance of (merchant, cargo) shipping even for the Allies (in 42 and up to end of 1943 this was not the case in real life for the Allies - they also could not build such massive bases like in the game in this time frame, later yes, cause they lacked supplies. Gosh! Can this be true Allies lacked shipping and supplies, unheard of in the game). Here is meant mostly "special" supplies like aircraft spare parts etc. not food, infantry ammo, water and fuel. I read about this a while ago, IIRC from official US source.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375