Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

I would consider the move gamey if in order to accomplish the mission you by-passed Pt. Moresby, Rabaul and the Solomons....IRL no non-lunatic commander would insert a substantial force a thosand miles behind the "front" with tno supporting base and the prospect of reinforcement being slim.

Seems like a valid strategem to me. Bypass the front-line strength and hit the weak but vital rear areas without which the front lines must wither and falter. Let's see which lunatic commander's did similar things in recent history --- the Germans in WW2,

quote:


the Soviets in WW2 ( and with the Operational Manoeuvre Group this was also their doctrine if the Cold War ever became hot),

quote:

Schwarzkopf during the first Gulf War --- Hmm, seems like a valid strategem to me and one which a lot of people would like to bitch about if they hadn't prepared for it.

quote:

If it wasn't a risk then the Allies wouldn't have tied down multiple divisions guarding rear area bases in real life. They committed these units to garrison duty precisely because in war ANYTHING is possible. If players don't take the same precautions then they deserve to be punished for their lassitude.

quote:


The Japanese player capitalising on an Allied error isn't gamey. It is just good play. The Allied player making the error is simply poor judgement.

quote:


FWIW the same applies to the Allies landing several divisions at Tokyo in 42 or 43. If the Japanese player is stupid enough not to garrison his territories and the Allied player mounts a landing then fair dues to him. Banning things outright instead of forcing player's to take the necessary and historical countermeasures ( garrisons) simply acts to cover up for poor play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

No please, it's gamey...

If someone takes Tokio in '43, it that gamey?
Sorry, but I belive I outplayed my opponent in a fashion that is anything but gamey. I can't belive I'm defending myself, but here...I had 8(!) IJA divs preparing for Sydney 3 months doing nothing in the meantime. I invaded east India to conceal a major operation on the other side of the world. I lost 3 CVs (2 sunk) for the operation and went ahead anyway. I had to sail many days in hostile waters avoiding detection, and when i finally arrived my whole strategy could have been flawed by just 1 or 2 divs. C'mon man!!!

If the Allies take Tokyo in '43 by sinking the KB, wiping out the bases in the way, and hitting with enough SUSTAINABLE (as in, keeping it supplied) force to take it because there is nothing to interfere with the flow of supplies - yes. If it is an attack in which those conditions are not met (KB active and afloat, Truk, Tarawa,Kwajalein, the Marianas, New Guinea, the PI still in Japanese hands and not menaced by much more than holding forces at best) and there is no defense in the HI to speak of - yes that is gamey because no one who was in command of a real force for any nation would leave themselves that exposed to the loss of a landing force because they were cut of and unsupplied.

Echo....Echo

Hello....Hello

....

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Germany?

Where and when did the Germans take any number of divisions and plant them somewhere outside of support from a nearby base? Norway comes to mind but they invaded southern norway first then moved north up the coastline from there if I'm not mistaken...

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Where and when did the Germans take any number of divisions and plant them somewhere outside of support from a nearby base? Norway comes to mind but they invaded southern norway first then moved north up the coastline from there if I'm not mistaken...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

Anyway i agree with Char and this statement 100%

quote:

These arguments about taking Sydney or Karachi being gamey are all relevant to the players involved and should not be label as being gamey is ALL cases.

quote:

Britian might have felt that their foothold in India was too unstable and may have even started withdrawing troop, let alone contiue reinforements. Same thing with Australia. If ANY base was taken in Australia, then they might have negotiated peace with the Japanese and withdrawn from the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Same thing with Australia. If ANY base was taken in Australia, then they might have negotiated peace with the Japanese and withdrawn from the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Where and when did the Germans take any number of divisions and plant them somewhere outside of support from a nearby base? Norway comes to mind but they invaded southern norway first then moved north up the coastline from there if I'm not mistaken...

You're mistaken. The Germans landed elements of a mountain division by way of 10 destroyers in Narvik. All of the destroyers were subsequently sunk, and the Allied forces came within a hair of actually destroying the German troops. The Royal Navy had complete control of the sea that far north, and no German vessels (other than U-Boats with their faulty torpedoes) came up there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Dino....I agree, it warrents a very long discussion, but any discussion would be completely hypothetical. Strange and unpredictable things happen in politics and war, so it would be hard to predict with any ABSOLUTE certainty what the political masterminds at the time would have done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Andrew, no slight intended towards Australians....everybody knows that given enough beer (or the threat of lossing their beer), the Austrailians will fight anybody/everybody.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Where and when did the Germans take any number of divisions and plant them somewhere outside of support from a nearby base? Norway comes to mind but they invaded southern norway first then moved north up the coastline from there if I'm not mistaken...

You're mistaken. The Germans landed elements of a mountain division by way of 10 destroyers in Narvik. All of the destroyers were subsequently sunk, and the Allied forces came within a hair of actually destroying the German troops. The Royal Navy had complete control of the sea that far north, and no German vessels (other than U-Boats with their faulty torpedoes) came up there.

Yes I was slightly off...but I did some checking...the Germans did not solely land elements of the Mountain division in Narvik and nowhere else...At the same time as the Narvik Op the Germans were also landing in Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger, Kristiansund and other places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Andrew, no slight intended towards Australians....everybody knows that given enough beer (or the threat of lossing their beer), the Austrailians will fight anybody/everybody.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Andrew, no slight intended towards Australians....everybody knows that given enough beer (or the threat of lossing their beer), the Austrailians will fight anybody/everybody.

No slight perceived. I was just commenting that I don't think the Australians would have given up so easily. Far from it, I think.

I hate to let the stereotype down, but I can't stand beer myself...

quote:

The sole occupation of Karachi without the rest of India being controlled should not stop British reinforcements from arriving in Theater.

quote:

Likewise the sole occupation of Sydney should not stop Australian reinforcements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

These arguments about taking Sydney or Karachi being gamey are all relevant to the players involved and should not be label as being gamey is ALL cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I'd say it was an excellent game move on your part! Well done!

The Allied player should not have left Sydney undefended and you were able to place 8 divisions into Sydney.

IRL now that you have occupied Sydney how do you subdue the rest of the country? Wouldn't the Australians raise units elsewhere?

IRL How do you insure that enough supply arrives to feed and arm the 8 divisions to enable you to subdue the rest of the country? How do you unload the ships carrying all of those supplies if the port facilities at Sydney were damaged? Where do you store all of those supplies to support the eight divisions? How long would that mountain of supplies remain uncontaminated and usable? How vulnerable would that mountain of supplies be to air attack?

AAR of my game vs Raver on my clan forum in croatian language (despite the language differences, no Ravers allowed)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

IF after Sydney falls the Allied player ALSO lets Melbourne fall.... well his incompetence dooms him long before any game mechanic does there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

And the road to Sydney was indeed Rabaul-Lunga-Noumea-Sydney...IOt was at Noumea that the CV battle occured with me losing 2 CVs, 1 in the yards till '45 v. 4 american CVs sunk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

the good thing about this thread is that Invasion of India is now justified!

quote:

common you all JFBs you can invade India now!!!!

quote:


On a more serious note, i think it is pointless that we all arguing about being gamey/not gamey... perhaps we should listen Honda's opponent first?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Treespider,

Read up on Barbarossa. The German armoured spearheads so far exceeded their supply echelons that they were operating off of captured Soviet fuel and paradropped ammunition etc.

quote:


Operational Manoeuvre Groups are not paraborne. They are armoured and mechanised units which drive through a hole in an enemy line for a target a minimum of 250 to 500km behind enemy lines. Since the range of land warfare is much "shorter" than naval warfare this equates quite well with the CONCEPT, if applied to naval warfare, obviously operating to a much greater operational depth of up to a few of thousand kms.

Also, Inchon, Gallipoli and a whole host of strategems from the Middle Ages featured the landing of significant land forces in the enemy's operational depth far behind the strength of the front.

quote:


As to the marines... Sure. BUT the key point is that it was an operation into the enemy's operational depth. One could easily argue that the IJN performed the task of securing the Sea Lines of Communication for this endeavour.

quote:

The sole occupation of Karachi without the rest of India being controlled should not stop British reinforcements from arriving in Theater.

Agreed. That's why I only play on maps which have Aden in play anymore.

quote:

Likewise the sole occupation of Sydney should not stop Australian reinforcements.

Hmm, well here facts get in the way of your argument. If Sydney falls Australian reinforcements will arrive in Melbourne and if Melbourne falls and they follow the same logic as other forces it is quite possible that they will arrive in other non-occupied bases. Unfortunately the manual which goes into some detail about China and the Home Islands doesn't give this same detail about other areas. Still, the point is that the fall of Sydney is not the end. Aussie reinforcements will then arrive in Melbourne. IF after Sydney falls the Allied player ALSO lets Melbourne fall.... well his incompetence dooms him long before any game mechanic does there.

quote:


Treespider,
Personally I do think that India, in early 42, was both militarily vulnerable and politically vulnerable and that cutting it off from naval reinforcements had the potential ( I can't be sure if it would or wouldn't have but I think the potential was there) to cause the collapse of the British government and the disintegration of much of the native Indian forces fighting with them.

quote:

Once Sydney falls, the fall of Melbourne is almost inevitable, regardless of players competence. 

quote:

I was describing a situation in which the Japanese did not bother securing their flanks for a push into Australia.

quote:

However if only Karachi were occupied I would suggest that the Japanese would be in a very precarious position. 

quote:

quote:

However if only Karachi were occupied I would suggest that the Japanese would be in a very precarious position. 

Correct. I don't say it is the best strategy I just argue that it is a valid option and shouldn't be dismissed as "gamey" and/or banned by rules. Players should defend what they want to hold, not create rules to gift it to themselves in perpetuity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I'd say it was an excellent game move on your part! Well done!

The Allied player should not have left Sydney undefended and you were able to place 8 divisions into Sydney.

IRL now that you have occupied Sydney how do you subdue the rest of the country? Wouldn't the Australians raise units elsewhere?

IRL How do you insure that enough supply arrives to feed and arm the 8 divisions to enable you to subdue the rest of the country? How do you unload the ships carrying all of those supplies if the port facilities at Sydney were damaged? Where do you store all of those supplies to support the eight divisions? How long would that mountain of supplies remain uncontaminated and usable? How vulnerable would that mountain of supplies be to air attack?

First I make sure have plenty of supply going with the invasion fleet. I have emergency supply in Noumea. Facilities are no longer damaged with 1000+ engineers working around the clock. Sydney is a huge base so no problem with storing. The not so mountain of supply is of course vunruable to air attack, more so with no forts. B17 just appeared on naval search over Sydney
But the most important thing is to make my troops selfsufficent. That's why I went for the industrial south. IIRC it was japanese doctrine to make their army live ofthe land it is stationed in as much as possible. Maybe we should tell them it was gamey...

The Australia operation was my strategic goal from the onset. As I said I plenned for it since the PI campaign which I deliberatly aborted once I pushed the enemy to Manila and left a blocking force. I also went for India with embarrasingly small force and just got away with it. However, I had to seriosly weaken the CenPac under 4th fleet and have lost Wake. And simultaniously with the taking of Sydney the enemy ivaded the Marshalls. It seems now the invasion will be defeated but I don't want to speak to soon. And the road to Sydney was indeed Rabaul-Lunga-Noumea-Sydney...IOt was at Noumea that the CV battle occured with me losing 2 CVs, 1 in the yards till '45 v. 4 american CVs sunk.
I must confess I now understand Pauk's frustration...

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan