Mega invasion fleets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Mike_B20 -> Mega invasion fleets (8/8/2003 6:07:38 AM)

I have just had an enlightening and somewhat depressing experience in a scenario 17 PBEM game.

Playing as allies, early July in 42, I noticed a few sightings in the middle of the Coral Sea.
They looked like surface taskforces as my opponent had mixed a very liberal quantity of warships into transport taskforces and due to the maximum 10 sighting reports I didn't see the transports. They were accompanied by the usual mega IJN carrier fleets.
Anyway, these taskforces seemed to linger in the middle of the Coral Sea, making their way slowly south.

Finally they made a dash for Brisbane while I scrambled to find something to offer some sort of resistance.
A few turns later revealed approximately 80,000 troops debarking from transports at Brisbane!
My opponent had loaded every form of transport he had, including tankers I believe, with every soldier available and sent them to Brisbane.

My troops at Rockhampton are too slow to play a part.
(the reality is, if an invasion of Brisbane was ever attempted, reinforcements from all over the Australian coastline could have been there overnight...we did have railways and good roads).

Pretty well all my land based air attacks were ineffective, as UV's combat engine targets two warships in a transport fleet for every troopship targetted.
Even when hit, the transports take forever to sink and virtually all troops disembarked safely.

There really seems no way to sink transports before an invasion, except the occasional mid ocean sub intercept.
Even when a surface taskforce manages a transport intercept they usually do negligible damage to the transports if there are accompanying warships.

Anyway, looks like Brisbane will fall quickly as only one division there and next reinforcements 20 days away.
Once again my opponent surprises me with fixed reinforcements, so he knew when my troops would arrive. I thought we were playing variable reinforcements.

This sort of gamey strategy makes me wonder why the protagonists in South Pacific ever bothered with places like Guadalcanal.
The correct strategy should have been to let the other guy scatter his troops to places like this, put every soldier you have into one mega transport group and take Brisbane or Noumea, or Truk...end of war.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.



Damien Thorn -> (8/8/2003 8:38:35 AM)

Why did he go for Australia? He could have taken Noume and ended the war. As it is, you will continue to get ships and troops in Noumea so you can still win the game.

Fixed reinforcements is dumb. Very variable is the only way to play.



wobbly -> (8/8/2003 9:07:14 AM)

Yeah mate, I hear you but think on this:

It is a tremendous roll of the dice - your opponent is putting all of his attack capacity in Brisbane and the supplies that constantly come into Brisbane will stop. This means he will have to hold the place - deep in your territory - and resupply it.

I agree though, the whole capacity to take Brisbane with such a long distance between bases (for him) would be suicide in real life. In a way though it is suicide for him as well. The biggest restriction is you will not get aussie land units until it is retaken.

Very gamey.



Mike_B20 -> (8/8/2003 9:30:11 AM)

Yes, it couldn't happen in real life.

The Japs couldn't find the ships let alone the fuel to mount such an operation and to do it in the face of the overwhelming allied airpower in OZ would have been suicide.
Hard to imagine they would remove all troops from every other base to do it as well.

Now that the level bombers have had their bombsights removed and the fact that all bombers tend to target warships rather than transports makes it very doable in UV if there are warships mixed with the transports.

The thing that amazes me though is that I really had no idea of the size of the operation from sightings in transit...only at landfall at Brisbane was this apparent.
This, even though I had 4 B17 squads along the coast on 50% and Hudsons and Catalinas on 70 % search.

I've badly damaged most of his 7 carriers and suffered no damage to mine so might yet win if we continue.
Am kinda annoyed about my opponent setting fixed reinforcements and trying a rush when I thought reinforcements were variable.



mogami -> Brisbane (8/8/2003 10:47:50 AM)

Hi, I lost Brisbane in 1 game. And the Japanese waited till Nov before capturing it. (Just after I thought myself safe and ordered 2 div to leave. (I had 4 Bde still in Brisbane.) Now I leave enough troops in Brisbane and Noumea to force the Japanese to send 12 rgt for 2-1 odds. But really. If the Japanese can move where they want without fear of your Navy or airforce they must be in pretty good shape. (I leave ships to watch my ports)



Mike_B20 -> (8/8/2003 10:54:03 AM)

Exactly how many ships would you have left at Brisbane to watch over it in the face of entire IJN armada, including 7 carriers, and lots of BB's, CA's and a plethora of DD's Mog?:D



mogami -> Fleets (8/8/2003 11:23:19 AM)

Hi, Well in the face of that you would need everything you had.
Since all your ships would have been in Brisbane or Noumea to begin with. And you tracked the whole IJN across the Coral Sea it was hardly a surprise. (In my game I did not spot the Japanese until they were next to Rockhampton. Also I did not have any CV remaining on map so my surface fleet could not move into the area. My landbased air were mostly deployed to Luganville and Townsville. The Japanese closed Rockhampton via bombardment before moving the transports to Brisbane.

But I get the main issue here. The bottom map edge is not the end of the world in reality. In WITP you would have many Australian units not included in UV. (Brisbane and other cities will never be as exposed as they are in UV)

Still if the Japanese mass everything to invade Brisbane the allies need to mass against it. (I've discovered in UV scenario 17 and 19 my USN CV are not important before I go on the offensive. The important trick is to learn where the Japanese intend on attacking. (capture of an auto victory base is the only hope the Japanese have) Then you move the CV there and off load the airgroups. The CV then return to PH for AA upgrades) In the face of massed carrier and medium bombers the Japanese have an impossible task unless they can close all airfields in range.)
I begin scen 17 or 19 by building TF's of 15 ships. (built around CA) The first TF guards Noumea (but can move to Brisbane in 2-3 days if needed) The 2nd is sent to Brisbane. (but can return to Noumea if needed) SO my fleet splits between Noumea and Brisbane. (all starting ships return to PH on turn 1 or as soon as possible) Upgraded ships begin returning on turn 38. (June 8th)

I've learned not to send the 7th Div away from Brisbane before 600 points of other units have arrived. Then I build up Rockhampton. Townsville is guarded by the PM/Cairns/Cooktown garrsions. (You can fast transport evac PM pretty fast and then send the ships back to PH)

Of course these are scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN tactics. (and against human in PBEM I never evac a base against AI)

I call these early Japanese efforts "The Bums Rush"
In one recent game the USN surface and Carrier units were mauled when the Japanese moved to Noumea as fast as possible.
However I held Noumea and finally land based carrier type bombers drove off the Japanese CV with heavy damage and then ripped apart the Japanese tranports. 50k Japanese troops were killed in the final battle (and another 20k early in the landings)
I had lucked out and guessed the intent and both the 3rd and 7th Aussie Div were present in Noumea. The shock attack the day after the landings began killed many Japanese. But they kept arriving for over a week. I have not heard from this Japanese player since his second try at Noumea was destroyed north of Kourmac before landing. (I would not have a surface force for another 6 months but all the Japanese bases would still be empty when I did get one)


Don't forget the Allied player secret weapon. Move all your PBY to range. Set at night naval attack 2k. (I hit 2 IJN CV this way)

Air attack on TF at 53,66


Allied aircraft
PBY Catalina x 12


Allied aircraft losses
PBY Catalina x 3 destroyed
PBY Catalina x 9 damaged

LTJG V.Jameson of VP-9 bails out and is RESCUED

Japanese Ships
DD Asakaze
CVL Ryujo, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, Torpedo hits 1, on fire



Mike_B20 -> (8/8/2003 11:39:38 AM)

Well, as I said, the scouting reports are limited to 10, so the transport taskforces looked like surface combat groups, as my opponent had about 10 warships on each.
I could see a few AP's but had no idea of the quantity of them.

I had a surface taskforce in Cairns and my 3 CV group in Noumea, awaiting on a carrier from Pearl. This carrier didn't arrive till the enemy groups were about mid Coral Sea.
I thought he was waiting to choose an invasion location based on the many recons he was flying on various PM and Australian bases. Being in the centre of Coral Sea he was on a position to go anywhere.

I couldn't approach with my 3 carriers till I got the extra one from Pearl. Even then I'd be outnumbered by his aircraft.

Anyway he raced into Brisbane and for 3 days his air groups pasted sundry vessels fleeing the area.
Round about here I engaged with my carriers after teaming up with the OZ surface TF and reinforcing my two 2 CV carrier groups.
Luckily 5 of his CV were badly damaged and mine unhurt as he rested his strike aircraft who must have been exhausted hitting transports, SC's leaving the area.

I really don't see how I could have prevented his advance earlier as his 7 fresh CV's would have wasted my 3 CV's.

Regarding offloading carrier airgroups.
I recently tried this in one of my PBEM games when a mixed force of several CV's CVL's CVE's approached Luganville.

All I had in Noumea was 2 CV's so I offloaded all aircraft into Luganville, Wunpunko and reinforced the area with marine airgroups.

My opponent must have had a ton of CAP up as he sailed right into the midst of approx 300 land based fighters (most on 100% escort), dive bombers and torpedo bombers and hit my ships at Luganville.
For three turns my land based air refused to attack.
All were morale 99 and low fatigue, apart from the fatigue incurred in base change.
After that I am very suspicious of land based air as a reliable weapon.



mogami -> Brisbane (8/8/2003 12:13:32 PM)

Hi, OK so only your leaving Brisbane weak caused a problem.
If he has not yet secured it send troops from SOPAC to help. Your CV should be able to clean up transports and surface ships. Then you only need to prevent his getting 2-1 odds. (If you do this you win once you get 2-1 odds.) He can't hit you anywhere else now. So 1 Bde or RCT is enough for any other base.

Don't forget to use your C-47 to fly in troops as long as you hold the airfield (damaged or not)

Fast transport too where possible. (you must get below the 2-1 as soon as possible)



Mike_B20 -> (8/8/2003 12:22:40 PM)

He already has 2-1 odds in last attack when fortifications were 6.
In that attack the fortifications were reduced by 2 so there is no chance to hold.
Even an immediate brigade or two would not be enough.

Not that I really care anymore.
I'm more concerned about fixing the game system so this rubbish wont happen in future.



mogami -> odds (8/8/2003 1:37:11 PM)

Hi, If the odds were only 2-1 your ok. You just need to drop it down to 1-1. C-47 and fast transport.
At 1-1 he will never capture the base. (capture is 2-1 plus fort level)

There is nothing wrong with the game system. Play the historic scenarios and things like this do not happen. Give the IJN 4 more CV and well.......You have to act differently. (You are not on the offensive)
I question how you could have 300 AC on Luganville in July 42.
(No Air HQ, and airfield would need to be a size 6)
(whats watching Noumea?)



Mike_B20 -> (8/8/2003 3:24:04 PM)

I didn't say just Luganville...I said Luganville, Wunpunko
Luganville was size 6 or 7, Wunpunko, size 3....and I never said it was July 42, it was a different game...August 42.

Btw Mog you are a fine player, I really appreciate your expertise and value your UV insights.

I think there are many things wrong with the game system.
Many little things, that if Matrix took the trouble shouldn't take too long to fix.
High on the list would be, 'attack CV taskforce only' option for CV or land airgroups.

Guess I'm no invasion commander...I see now how simple the combat system is, with fortification not affecting the odds an iota(although it does affect the result)...which is again wrong.
the final result should be again randomized to allow for some 'randomness'...not this idiotic 2-1 bullshit.

Always things can be improved Mog...nothing wrong with that.

Btw, regardless of the result at Brisbane, I'm gonna can this guy and send him back to Yamamoto as bad tinned sushi.



mogami -> Condensed UV (8/8/2003 4:40:06 PM)

Hi, Well in the year + that UV has been out. The Japanese plan of operations has been boiled down and condensed into standard movements. If the Japanese get the historic schedule's (such as they are for units that never entered the theater or were sunk else where during this period. It should be fairly easy for them to capture one of the 5 auto victory bases.
All they have to do is conduct recon missions and track down where the allied player places each unit. There is not enough strength for the allies to guard all five to where Japan cannot get good odds at one location.
The whole thing comes down to can Japan transport the units to that location.
But here again if he moves fast enough he should be able to brute his way to a target base and maintain his naval force long enough to unload.
(The Japanese should there fore wait as long as possible to delay and reduce the time allowed for allied reaction.
However I discovered that in scenario 19 if the Japanese capture an auto base and move every one of their ground units there. There allies cannot recapture it. (before they lose the game) Since they do not receive enough units before May 43 to get 2-1 odds on 100k Japanese.

The only hopes of the allied player are
A. Win the carrier battle and have enough carriers left to turn back any transports. (Or uncover the transports and sink them with LBA. or surface TF's)

B. Hope the Japanese move too fast and in a disjointed manner. Where the allies can defeat a superior force by meeting it in detail.

C. The Japanese waste their force in unnecessary ops. (Lose a few CV chasing allied transports or getting too close to LBA for no reason.

It has been my experience that all Japanese players (myself included) commit errors prior to realizing the capture of an auto city. The question is can the allied player recognize and exploit these errors. (The allied players commit errors as well. Allied errors can be fatal. Japanese errors tend to negate their starting edge to various degrees but are not automatically fatal outside of their causing the Japanese to fail in securing their auto base. (which in the long run is fatal)


UV is an operational game. The ground combat (I agree it produces it's results too rapidly) is really an abstraction of 2 main factors. Numbers and supply. Operationally if you get the numbers and supply you win. This being the case you must prevent the enemy from getting the numbers.

Air transport and fast transport are the keys here. You must position the bulk of your force where it can move to the attacked base before that base is captured. (So you have to maintain certain levels at a base you wish to hold.)

Dig in as much as possible. This can buy a lot of time. It is important to note that each level you are dug in increases enemy loss and lowers friendly loss. Since capture of the base is always 2-1 plus fort level. If the enemy begins the battle with marginal odds and suffers high loss while you move new units to the base. (Air transport moves the combat value portions of a unit first)
The defender can often reduce the odds down to 1-1 or better yet 0-1. But he must be prepared from the start to employ this method. (You want the transport AC and FT ships already present in the base to send reinforcments from. Noumea is too far to support Brisbane or Rockhampton. For this reason both Noumea and Bribane must be defended to the limit at all times before trying to defend any other base. Rockhampton and Townsville are more important then Efate or Luganville. (They are larger.)
Don't build Efate or Luganville prior to having troops to defend them. (I even remove the supply and fuel)
If the Japanese get to Townsville they are very hard to remove.
Efate and Luganville are much easier. (If you have'nt built the bases they are easy to keep inoperative and isolated.
Townsville can be supplied rapidly from PM/Gili But Luganville has a very weak connection (the bases are not built yet behind Luganville. The Japanese do not have a surplus of engineers to build Lunga, Luganville and other bases. The USN can FT/bombard/mine Luganville/Efate in one day from Noumea. (Townsville requires 2 days and is more dangerous because it will have airfields and Cooktown and Cairns as well supporting it)

If the Japanese invade Luganville send the 3rd or 7th Div to SOPAC (or both) If the Japanese invade Townsville send everything except a RCT from SOPAC to SWPAC

You can march to Townsville. (A reason in favor of Japan invading Luganville/Efate) However your units will not be fully effective when they get there. (And it's very hard to get all units to arrive same turn)(WITP corrects this. You can order units to "follow" other landunits and they will not move unless they all move together)

Blah Blah Blah. (sorry) It comes down to......Don't let them get there faster with more.



ADavidB -> (8/8/2003 5:20:43 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]I didn't say just Luganville...I said Luganville, Wunpunko
Luganville was size 6 or 7, Wunpunko, size 3....and I never said it was July 42, it was a different game...August 42.

Btw Mog you are a fine player, I really appreciate your expertise and value your UV insights.

I think there are many things wrong with the game system.
Many little things, that if Matrix took the trouble shouldn't take too long to fix.
High on the list would be, 'attack CV taskforce only' option for CV or land airgroups.

Guess I'm no invasion commander...I see now how simple the combat system is, with fortification not affecting the odds an iota(although it does affect the result)...which is again wrong.
the final result should be again randomized to allow for some 'randomness'...not this idiotic 2-1 bullshit.

Always things can be improved Mog...nothing wrong with that.

Btw, regardless of the result at Brisbane, I'm gonna can this guy and send him back to Yamamoto as bad tinned sushi. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think that you have gotten to the heart of the matter - there are those of us who don't like the inherent "gaminess" of the system and want to play a "historic" wargame. Unfortuately, some of the design decisions in UV turn it into what is essentially a "sci-fi" game instead of an "alternate history" game.

I keep hoping that WitP avoids some of this nonsense.

Dave Baranyi



TIMJOT -> (8/8/2003 9:42:11 PM)

For all you naysayers out there. As recently posted over at the WitP forum.

Some of the latest Alpha build features

1) Airgroup Max range setting

2) TF max react setting ( 0-6 hexes )

3) TF speed setting

4) TFs can be set to unload/not unload in port.

5) Engineer units can destroy base facilities



Nikademus -> Gamey (8/8/2003 10:32:41 PM)

Just to play Devil's Advocate, i think alot of what's been said here can be appliled to the situation at PM and other forward bases as well. The biggest one being "Why didn't the Allies just immediately commit an entire division to the defense of Port Morosby vs the piecemeal commitment? Why didn't the Allies transfer most of their airforce there to frustrate Japanese movements and interdict their network vs. dispersing their units along the eastern coastline of Oz?

It can be just as "gamey" to immediately stuff that forward with nearly every INF and air unit you have in order to prevent it from falling (thereby giving you key forward base from which you can then shut down the entire P/NG area with a few heavy bombers.

I'd say this thread gives a good indication of why the Allies behaved the way they did. One cannot assume that the enemy is going to oblige you by only attacking the bases closest to them (ala a land campaign with a continuous "Front line") Its a naval campaign, and the naval version of "outflanking" is to attack a vital base towards the rear that may have been neglected due to the stuffing of a forward base.

Its not gamey in of itself. If you dont ensure that your house is locked up while focusing on the chicken coop you cant blame the game engine if the Fox decides to raid your pantry.

WitP will solve part of this issue just in the fact that there will be no "auto victory" bases in this area....which is not to say that defending cities like Brisbane still wont be important...because while any enemy move that leapfrogs such a distance will be bound to be doomed, the loss of any supply/fuel and industries, etc etc will hurt in the long run.

so the moral: defend your rearward bases! :D

If one really wants an example of "gamey" i think the ability to airlift whole brigades and divisions by C-47 and PBY in record time, ready to fight is a tad bit on the gamey side...even when there's an enemy CAP present.



PzB74 -> (8/8/2003 11:38:13 PM)

The term 'gamey' appears more and more often on the forums. From good ole WIR to UV - same story.

House rules is a possibility, but should be agreed upone between players before the game is started.

An example:

Imagine my surprise in a WIR (42 pbem game) when I discovered that my opponent had railed tank div's into Leningrad and inf div's out of Sevastopol in july 42 :confused:

The explanation was that this was 'naval supply' and a historical option! LOL! - Took a while for me to absorb that one.

The point is: Ofcourse we all want a historical game, but variation is also very interesting - especially when you come to the conclusion that 'historical' got limitations and nothing more can be achieved.

In UV this limitation is - as Mog said - a fact when you play the historical scenarios as the Jap player. It's almost impossible to win...

You can be a die hard and try over and over again until you find the right combination of strategy, luck and incompetance by your opponent - or go for the un historical scenarios were you really move boundaries and create opportunities that are quite unheard of.

Personally, I like to keep doors open and be exposed to all kinds of 'disasters'. Where is all the fun if you know what to expect?

It's really a downer when I read Mogs conclusion: 'The Japanese plan of operations has been boiled down and condensed into standard movements.' Yuck, I know he's right - but I don't like it.

The biggest limitation in games - for me anyways - is that when the opportunities have been depleted, all that's left is to drive the bus. (Have I ever told you how much I hate to take the bus?)

So when you're in the receiving end of a really surprising and devastating attack by your opponent - thrive in it and do your outmost! The thrill of not knowing how it's all going to turn out is really one of the finest moments of the game! :)



mogami -> Deployments (8/9/2003 1:11:31 AM)

Hi, I realize I am only dreaming when I make this offering but I want to share some of my ideas that perhaps in some future time can find a place in UV.

Starting deployment.

First both players agree on start and end dates.

Then they agree on points for each side. Each player then "buys"
the units they will receive during the game. After they have bought their units the program randomly assigns arrival dates and play begins. (Each player has a certain percentage of points they can place on map at start.)

During the game any unit sent back off map converts into points player can use to choose a new unit. (with a delay before arrival)

Using this method no two games would ever be alike.

(Of course the Allied player would buy defensive units at start but this in turn would grant the Japanese a period to prepare their defense. ) (It would be quite funny if both players began with defense zzzzzzzzzzz. Or both purchase CV and little else.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

This is presently possible if the players first edit the scenario. I would recommend a third party do the editing following input from each player.



PzB74 -> (8/9/2003 1:47:07 AM)

'Using this method no two games would ever be alike.'

This is ofcourse what it all cooks down to :) No two games should really be alike!

I've been playing the SP series pbem since 97 - and this is exactly how my games are played today - Custom made maps, points to purchase equippment a.s.o.

(In the beginning it was really funny to use game exploits to win an advantage over your opponent. But as time passed, all that mattered was creating the perfect battle scene and try to do your best against an enemy you really don't know much about.)

So if it's possible to do something similar with UV - and WITP when it hits the shelves one shiny day - we'd have a never ending source of challenges and interesting battles!

(This was also how I played Warship against the AI. Created the map, purchased my fleet and went to work... Never got tired of that old beauty..)

So I really share your enthusiasm about such a possibility for UV/WITP Mog!



Nikademus -> (8/9/2003 3:12:44 AM)

variation rocks, as does unpredictability even at the expense of "no nonsense conservative strategy"

One of my fondest PBEM memories was staging an early two carrier raid on Truk. My opponent assumed i would do the usual keep the USN CV's away till you get all five or six trick so was completely taken by suprise when suddenly SBD's starting raining fire down on unguarded transports shuttling troops and supplies to Rabaul.

Cost me dearly in the end but it was sure fun and in the end it totally upset my opponent's early offensive time table because he in turn, lost a carrier, and had 3 others sent back to Japan for repairs (+ i got some imperial soldiers too!). :D



Mr.Frag -> (8/9/2003 6:47:59 AM)

[QUOTE]It's really a downer when I read Mogs conclusion: 'The Japanese plan of operations has been boiled down and condensed into standard movements.' Yuck, I know he's right - but I don't like it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you quite understood his meaning. Japan has a window in which to win the game by taking advantage of poor planning by the Allied player. Japan either plans and uses the window or looses. There is no choice involved, and the movements are completely based on what the Japan player can discover by outplaying the Allied player.

This really has come down over the last year to a battle of wits, with the winner taking all. What Mogami and your quote leaves out is the simple fact that Japan cannot win either of the historical scenarios *if* the Allied player plays a very simple game of protecting Noumea and Brisbane properly. You will notice Mogami plays with a 200% bonus for Japan, because he too understands that without a massive boost to Japan, the Allied player will never loose.

The problem is that too many Allied players throw this simple fact out the window and forget the real goal which is preventing Noumea/Brisbane from falling and actually do themselves in completely in the process. I have had many long threads with folks arguing the point about the great defense of PM. The facts are PM = Noumea/Brisbane capture, yet people will argue for years that they can hold ;)

The Japan player can not win this game EVER. The Allied player must LOOSE the game for Japan. It is only now starting to sink into people that these are the simple facts. ;)



Mike_B20 -> (8/9/2003 11:14:30 AM)

The idea that Japan capturing either Noumea or Brisbane would have won them the war or the South Pacific is laughable.
Allies would have simply changed to new staging areas.
The fact that Japan winning these locations in UV probably wins them the game simply reminds me that this is a very simplified model of the struggle.

The fact that Australians have to walk their troops up and down the Australian coastline is a joke.
The Ozzies could have had entire divisions moved between Cairns, Rockhampton or Sydney and Brisbane overnight.
As I said, we had good roads and railways and the public would have provided all transportation necessary by way of cars, trucks, delivery vans or whatever.
Moving troops to PM on the other hand would have been a genuine risk but otherwise the interior lines meant any Japanese invasion of the Australian coast was a pipe dream.

Yes, I made a mistake moving troops out of Brisbane but as I said earlier, I had specified variable reinforcements and my opponent went ahead with fixed reinforcements and the 'bums rush'.
That's what annoys me the most.



Mr.Frag -> (8/9/2003 12:18:51 PM)

Mike, UV is a game, the idea is to win ;)

When WitP comes out, you will be safe from getting caught by those kinds of mistakes.



Mike_B20 -> (8/9/2003 12:26:28 PM)

Winning I don't care about really.
I'm more interested in fighting a semi-historical recreation of the struggle in the South Pacific.

If I ever play as the IJN my opponents will have an advantage, because I will never in a thousand years load everything I have into one giant invasion fleet with the idea of rushing a 'victory location' LOL

That will obviously free up their strategic options somewhat.:)



RevRick -> Very simple, Mike. (8/9/2003 4:02:37 PM)

Don't play this maniac again. If someone wants to play the game like a flaming idiot without regard to all the possible consequences of a real life maneuver of that nature - like a real commander would have to (or possibly find themselves the beneficiary of a samurai neck massage, or court martial at the very least in the USN system) - find someone who understands the nature of wargaming instead of just gaming the system to win. Anyone can play like a roaring weirdo just to rack up points - like the twitchy fingered kids with their shooters - but to capture the flavor of actually being in command is the essence of wargaming Taking an utterly unrealistic shot at a point grabber without a real understanding the consequences of stripping your entire theater for a such a radical operation renders such people unworthy of the headache, nor the effort, in my opinion. I want to play wargamers not wargaming geeks who manage the system. When I was playing board games, such people were not readmitted to the polite society of gamers we ran.



PzB74 -> (8/9/2003 9:22:42 PM)

Ahem - can I offer one suggestion?

Instead of calling eacother names and make feelings run of with you - Talk to eachother, say what kinda game you're looking for and agree upon house rules!

I feel it's human limitations - not game limitations that's really the problem here! Enough gaming potential here for everyone for years to come.

--------------------------------------

"Mom, What's Sex?"

A little boy returning home from his first day at
school said to his mother, "Mom, what's sex?"

His mother, who believed in all the most modern
educational theories, gave him a detailed
explanation, covering all aspects of the tricky
subject.

When she had finished, the little lad produced
an enrollment form which he had brought home
from school and said, "Yes, but how am I going
to get all that into this one little square?"

:cool:



Mr.Frag -> (8/9/2003 10:46:26 PM)

Huh? :rolleyes:

So, because I play UV with the plan of winning the game, I'm just another of the "gamey" folks or as Rev says, a "maniac"? :eek:

I would turn that around completely on you and say that because you moved all your troops away from rear area bases for a "gamey" forward defense that was not historically possible that indeed you are the one playing "gamey" :D

Historically no commander on the planet would have been allowed to pull troops away from the defense of these key bases.

As in all things in life, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want it, play scenario 16 instead of 17/19 with Midway already factored into the game. You will see that it plays out more historically as it is historical. ;)

I fail to understand why someone playing Japan who gathers great intel about the Allied side and uses it properly to plan a major invasion to take advantage of this information is playing "gamey". All that is required to block a invasion fleet from landing troops is a single naval vessel. You didn't have your navy available to do so, therefore you couldn't block the landing. Somehow this all gets translated into the Japan side resorting to "trickery and gamey play" instead of the obvious facts of the matter which is you got caught napping :D

Take it as a valuable learning experience and adjust your play to account for it instead of turning it into a negative. As with all games, one improves by loosing and learning.



RevRick -> To those who I have offended... (8/10/2003 12:04:29 AM)

my apologies. I could have blamed it on being sick and tired, but that is not the only operative factor in this case. I have been gaming for 29 years - and will NOT play someone who plays a quirk in the game scoring mechanism to ahistorically or unrealistically win on a point schedule. As I said, in my opinion, humble or otherwise, the essence of war gaming is to place oneself in the place of a commander, or participant, to test one's skill in the theater of operations - not to find a quirky way to claim a victory nor how fast one can maneuver a keyboard of game controller. Again, to those I have offended with my language, I apologize.

BTW, in PBEM games, is it possible to save a turn in the computer, rename it, and then open the last turn under your opponents nationality? If so, such would be a very effective way to garner a lot of intelligence.



Mr.Frag -> (8/10/2003 1:45:26 AM)

Rev, a PBEM turn cannot be opened without the correct password so that ability to gain intel does not exist. That would also fall into the catagory of cheating. If you can't play without cheating, wargaming really isn't for you (not aimed at you personally) :D

As far as putting together a large scale attack to strike it the rear, it is not as simple as it sounds. It requires far more thought then you might think.

(a) Mines must be cleared from the destination. Japan only has a very few mine sweepers that can be used with any speed or fuel capacity. Therefore an advanced network of refueling ships must be planned to keep these ships on station. One of the very first lessons you will learn is that MSW ships that are sweeping automatically abandon their task and run for home when low on fuel. These ships also sink if even a SG manages to tag them making them very difficult to use in hostile waters. Due to the extreme number of minefields in these rear area bases, you have to plan to keep a group of MSW alive in the base hex for at least 4 turns. Loose them, and you loose your invasion. To protect them means you need a large CV force in a nearby hex. This group has to not only protect all the transports, but also LR Cap the MSW or the invasion fails.

(b) AA Ammo is depleted from ships as air attacks pick on them turn after turn. There is no option to reload ammo so as the invasion progresses, the losses increase dramatically.

(c) Main ammo is depleted from Capital ships for each TF that attempts to block the invasion fleet. These ships run for home as soon as they run low which strips the fleet in a matter of 2 turns of much of their firepower. Again, since there is no ammo within 8 odd days steaming, there is plenty of time to destroy these sub-fleets on the way home as they can't fight back.

(d) Bombardment cannot be used for these invasions as it depletes the very ammo that must be used to fight off surface/air attacks that will abort the invasion.

(e) Constant refueling efforts cause operational points to get burned causing problems with reaction abilities and ship speeds, making keeping ships in formation a pain in the butt. No fuel, you loose.

(f) constant air ops drain fuel from CV/CVL at incredible rates, no fuel, no planes, invasion wiped out (see Mogami's unload airgroups tactic which removes fuel issue for the other side)

(g) Allies get to attack MSW fleet with surface fleet while it is prepping the base for landing. Only defense is to risk Capital ships to support the MSW which causes Capital ships to take mine damage at high rates.

Many many other parts must be carefully planned to pull this off successfully, it is not a simple matter of just putting everything on a AP and heading for these bases.

The Allied side starts with 3 divisions worth of troops to protect the Aussies and gains a 4th division shortly thereafter. Japan NEVER has enough troops to counter this. Only by misallocating these Allied troops can Japan pull off a invasion.

If one wants to talk about history, one should look at history. Operations such as Market Garden, D-Day, Pearl Harbour, Ardennes, etc all fall into your catagory of ahistorical, yet they all happened, so I guess it becomes rather impossible by your "imposed" rules to even have a war game that models these actual events. I too have been playing wargames as long as you have, and I accept the limitations of the gaming system that I happen to be playing with and work within what is technically capable.

An auto victory rule exists within UV. Use of such a rule is within the game or Gary would not have programmed the possibility. By calling use of this rule (rule 19.2 in the manual) ahistorical or unrealistic, you are basically challenging the developer who wrote the rule into the game.

Rule 19.2 is not a quirk in the game scoring mechanism. It is a fundimental part of the game. I'm sorry you don't like the rule, but it is not in any way an abuse of the system.

If you remove Rule 19.2, you might as well remove rule 19.0 and 19.1 completely and simply say that there is no winner at all, we are just going to play the game to have fun. I would think you might find trouble locating Japan players to even play the game without rule 19.2 as there is no other way for the game to end in other then a Allied Decisive Victory as per rule 19.1.

I don't take these threads seriously because everyone has their own views on things, but I do fail to understand why people question things when they loose to someone who is simply following the same set of rules. If you don't like rule 19.2, what do you think the Japan player should do? Sit back and wait for the Allied steamroller?

Without Rule 19.2, Japan's only option is to send EVERY ship back to Japan, disband/withdraw EVERY air unit/troop and deny every possible victory point to the Allied player by having NOTHING to loose.



ADavidB -> (8/10/2003 1:46:35 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]Winning I don't care about really.
I'm more interested in fighting a semi-historical recreation of the struggle in the South Pacific.

If I ever play as the IJN my opponents will have an advantage, because I will never in a thousand years load everything I have into one giant invasion fleet with the idea of rushing a 'victory location' LOL

That will obviously free up their strategic options somewhat.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

BRAVO!!! This is a man who understands what war gaming should be.

What bothers me about UV is that it is so close to being a superior "semi-historical recreation" - what I want is for it to be brought closer to historical and have less fudge factors for gaminess-sake. This is one of the reasons why I like to play scenario 16, rather than the "sci-fi" scenarios. A good Japanese player should be able to take advantage of his resources early on to gain enough points to hold off the Allies in 43.

The problem with UV is that it has been designed to attempt to provide a "balanced" game - and so the "pure gamers" like it and the "historical gamers" have problems with it. Does this mean that a Dec 41 - May 42 Pacific war scenario should be balanced too? ( Thinking of WitP.)

I guess the real need is for 2x3/Matrix to give the option for "historic" versus "balanced" play in their games - agree with your opponent on which one you go with, set a switch, and go.

In the end, I want the option to see if I can do better than history, not play a sci-fi game.

Dave Baranyi



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375