Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Bombay

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Bombay Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bombay - 4/3/2009 6:22:29 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That's a stout force!  How many Indian divisions are in the Allied OOB at this point in the game?  If there aren't any/many other than those shown in Bombay or accounted for in Burma, then the Karachi defense might be a cobbled-together and weak force, although perhaps the Allies moved alot of Chinese into India, and are now using them to garrison Karachi.


I am going to construct an OOB now to try to figure it out. Alot of the units in Bombay are from Malaya; don't you love that?

EDIT: OK, here we go. Here are the units that start in SE Asia, that are unaccounted for. Note that there are several Malaya units at Bombay, so we have to assume there are fragments around for that whole army to reconstruct. So unaccounted for include:

INDIA at START:
2 2/3 Indian Divisions (14th,17th, and the other 2/3 of the 20th)
44th Ind Bde
45th Ind Bde
4 District Bdes
2 Indian Tank Bdes

MALAYA AT START:
5 Bdes (6,12,22 ind, both Aus Brigades)

BURMA AT START:
2 Bdes (13th, 16th Ind)

Based on what we have seen in Burma, we doubt there are any Chinese troops in India.

That's not quite what they have in Bombay, but we have to figure at least 1000 AV based just on the at-start troops in India

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 4/3/2009 6:40:01 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 691
RE: Bombay - 4/3/2009 6:35:12 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I dunno if I love it or not.  :)

You guys have done a great job with your India campaign.  You conceived it, planned it, implemented it, and accomplished most of what you set out to do, and doing so was a challenge.  Also, as best I can tell you've lost next to nothing.  You guys ROCK!

At the same time, you have to admire the Allies for conducting an effective defense and then an organized retreat that allows them to likely save Bombay or Karachi or both.  They've lost troops, but they too seem rather unscathed at this point.

That you and John have also taken most of NZ, Suva, and Pago Pago is icing on the cake.

Now, let's see what your opponents can do.  It's going to be a tough game, because both sides are clearly up to the challenge. 

I just wish your opponents were doing an AAR.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 692
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 6:44:53 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		If you don't take Bombay and Karachi then this Indian drive will NOT have been worth it. The dissipation of strategic effort from the earliest landing was always a massive worry and now you are paying the price. Mopping up has delayed you sufficiently that the CRUCIAL strategic targets ( the two bases from which the Allies could fight back without having to mount major amphibious invasions ) are now, possibly, beyond your reach.

What you NEED to do is:
a) use the MINIMUM force possible behind your lines to prevent Allied forces cut off behind your lines from doing any major damage

b) concentrate ALL your force in India on Bombay ( except a small amount to prevent Karachi forces coming to its aid )

c) SWEEP, SWEEP and SWEEP again the air over Bombay. If it costs 400 fighters then do it. Do it in ONE DAY and break the back of the Bombay defences once and for all. Once the sweeps have done their job send in the level bombers on airfield attack missions.

d)BOMBARD, BOMBARD, BOMBARD to lower enemy supplies ( in conjunction with air attacks on the airfield and port ).

e) ship in every soldier you can find. If you can buy out another 1,000 AV then do so. Leave the Pacific weak if you have to ( your CVs can cover for ground weakness tehre ) but be SURE of India through holding nothing back.

f) attack Bombay mercilessly.

Once you have Bombay you should be able to use Bettys and CVEs and CVLs basing frmo Bombay to prevent resupply from Aden. If the Allies only get 6,000 tons of supplies per month as auto-supply then you should be able to starve them out with ground bombardments and airstrikes over the course of many months.

This failure to split the enemy forces before investing Karachi has cost you the ability to mount major operations elsewhere ( New Zealand is folly when you consider the troops there might have done a lot more good around Bombay 2 weeks ago ) in the rest of 1942 BUT the most important thing is pushing through and taking Bombay and Karachi.

You need to be quick though as in 1 month's time you should expect Karachi to begin receiving US troops... Without supply though those US troops won't fare well.


If you don't take Karachi or Bombay then even a mediocre opponent is going to bleed your ground forces dry in India and quickly Inchon you ( look at the terrain to the east of Bombay, a few FT TFs dropping a Bde at each hex can give the thousands of troops he can bring into Bombay in 1943 operational freedom and then BAM it's all over for you in India ).


You need to take both, you need to do this quickly and you need to stop this dissipation of force you both seem so fond of.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 693
RE: Bombay - 4/3/2009 6:47:11 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I concur that they should be writing an AAR!  It seems that so many have enjoyed reading Dan and Mine's it would be nice for our readers here to do the same.  Perhaps someone should BUMP their thread?

The biggest advantages we have in India right now is that we have a massive air arm of fighters and bombers as well as 6 BB about ready to go.  Once we figure out what we are facing and make the decisions as to where to concentrate for attack and seige we'll see what happens.  Bombay makes the much more logical attack.  We can use our airpower, once the AFs are expanded, and have our BBs rotate through Mandalore bombarding Bombay every other day.  Makes best sense to attack where we are strongest; however, if Karachi has only fragments then...



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 694
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 6:56:00 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Canoerebel,
Do you seriously believe what you say?

How can you call this a success? They dissipated their forces, allowed their opponents to retreat in good order ( when a single axis advance north from the landing zone would have cut India into portions and prevented their opponents doing this, thus ensuring the collapse of Bombay and Karachi ), and are now in the position of possibly NOT TAKING the TWO MOST CRUCIAL BASES IN INDIA.

I would hardly have called World War II a success if it hadn't ended up with either the Third Reich or the Japanese government falling. Sure the Allies toppled the Italian, Romanian and Hungarian governments but nothing is a success unless you secure the prime targets. Without the prime targets you are talking about mitigation of failure, not success.


NZ, Suva and Pago Pago..... Well, taking them is nice but taking those at the cost of not taking Bombay is a terrible trade. Without Bombay and Karachi they stand to lose this war much earlier than if they took Bombay and Karachi. NZ, Suva and Pago Pago won't keep them in the war for that extra time.

What can their opponents do? Tough game? I really don't think so. Here's the simple solution to this assuming John etc don't finish Bombay off:
1. Troops and supplies and fighters to Bombay to keep it open.

2. APs and FT TFs to Bombay in order to transport Brigade fragments to the coastal rail hexes east and south of Bombay.

3. Co-ordinate this with para drops of troops shipped in from CONUSA via Panama Canal and Atlantic etc. ( since Bombay is coastal these paras can be dropped up to 30 hexes away using PBYs.

4. Now use the large land army you have built up at Bombay to march out of Bombay behind the Japanese forces besieging Karachi.

5. Once the IJA pulls away from karachi in order to avoid being cut off then move out of Karachi and switch to a general pursuit down to Calcutta via Delhi.


If the Allies are particularly ruthless they can achieve the same thing at Karachi by landing in the coastal hexes and Ahmadabad. Whatever IJA forces invest Karachi will be left with no lines of supply and will just be stuck without anywhere to move. Destroyed as surely as if they were killed to a man in battle.


Whether their opponents are good enough to see this or not is a different matter but I would suggest that congratulating them for allowing this to happen through making strategic errors doesn't help them to improve their play.

John and Q-Ball HAVE played well but let's not let that blind them or us to the mistakes they have made or they won't learn from them and improve. I tell you now that if I was the Allies in this position I would feel supremely confident of having India back fully in my control ( and several thousand IJA AV destroyed or in prison camps ) by the end of September 1942.


Taking India except for Bombay and karachi is a serious over-extension. if you can't take at least Bombay then I think you should conduct an orderly retreat from India back into Burma +/- a force at Ceylon to delay the Allies.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 695
RE: Bombay - 4/3/2009 6:59:25 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Nemo and I just said a few similar things as our postings crossed in the either!

I don't agree with the New Zealand comment though.  Remember that this Operation has only cost us the use of about 800 AS.  We agreed from the start that 56th ID would be used in the Pacific with the South Seas Force.  To these units the only addition was the 9th Ind Brigade from China.  That is it when it comes to Infantry.

As to reinforcements coming towards India, we have bought out a batch of Support Units from Korea to aid in more rapidly expanding bases and Forts in India.  Several Heavy Artillery Regiments and a TK Regiment are also on the way.  We plan to buy out a full strength Infantry Division as soon as possible from Korea and move it to India.

The KB will be fully concentrated in about 7 days at Auckland.  After some R&R they will move to Pago Pago and raise some Hell.  My goal is to keep up the attacks while trying to mimize the risk to the Fleet.  Going after Canton will--hopefully--provoke a response on a battlefield of our choosing.  We should have 6 CV and 3 CVL operating there and that should provide a stout enough force to cause some serious damage.

As to folly in India, I will never see it that way.  We have driven the enemy back to the edge of the country.  Even if we cannot drive them out, the fight begins a LONG WAY FROM BURMA.  My feelings are quite simple.  The moment we realize that we cannot take out these last targets then we set-up our defense planning on an Inchon-Type Landing.  The earliest the Allies may be able to do that is 1943.  Throughout that time we will milk India for Manpower, Heavy Industry, and everything else we can gain.  Our economy will be massively strengthened for at least 12 months of game time.  Add to that no danger to Burma then we are in great shape.

There will be no repeat of Dan's work in THIS campaign!  Some might call this "Forlorn Hopes Derrangement Syndrom."    


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 696
RE: Bombay - 4/3/2009 7:07:12 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		The earliest is early 1943? With all due respect John I'd have you out of India by the end of September 1942 at the latest and I'm no miracle-worker as a player so if I can do it so can they using nothing more than a bit of common sense and appropriate application of the basics. Without Bombay or Karachi your current position in India is just one huge kessel begging for an imaginative updating of a good old-fashioned kesselschlacht with paras and FT TFs substituting for cavalry and panzers.

Failing to see that merely ensures the kesselschlacht will be successful.


As to the NZ force... 1,000 extra AV in India when you first landed could have made the march to Bombay before it got fortified. Dissipation of force is seldom a good idea and what has been happening to India both strategically and operationally.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 697
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 7:11:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Canoerebel,
Do you seriously believe what you say?

How can you call this a success? They dissipated their forces, allowed their opponents to retreat in good order ( when a single axis advance north from the landing zone would have cut India into portions and prevented their opponents doing this, thus ensuring the collapse of Bombay and Karachi ), and are now in the position of possibly NOT TAKING the TWO MOST CRUCIAL BASES IN INDIA.

I would hardly have called World War II a success if it hadn't ended up with either the Third Reich or the Japanese government falling. Sure the Allies toppled the Italian, Romanian and Hungarian governments but nothing is a success unless you secure the prime targets. Without the prime targets you are talking about mitigation of failure, not success.


NZ, Suva and Pago Pago..... Well, taking them is nice but taking those at the cost of not taking Bombay is a terrible trade. Without Bombay and Karachi they stand to lose this war much earlier than if they took Bombay and Karachi. NZ, Suva and Pago Pago won't keep them in the war for that extra time.

What can their opponents do? Tough game? I really don't think so. Here's the simple solution to this assuming John etc don't finish Bombay off:
1. Troops and supplies and fighters to Bombay to keep it open.

2. APs and FT TFs to Bombay in order to transport Brigade fragments to the coastal rail hexes east and south of Bombay.

3. Co-ordinate this with para drops of troops shipped in from CONUSA via Panama Canal and Atlantic etc. ( since Bombay is coastal these paras can be dropped up to 30 hexes away using PBYs.

4. Now use the large land army you have built up at Bombay to march out of Bombay behind the Japanese forces besieging Karachi.

5. Once the IJA pulls away from karachi in order to avoid being cut off then move out of Karachi and switch to a general pursuit down to Calcutta via Delhi.


If the Allies are particularly ruthless they can achieve the same thing at Karachi by landing in the coastal hexes and Ahmadabad. Whatever IJA forces invest Karachi will be left with no lines of supply and will just be stuck without anywhere to move. Destroyed as surely as if they were killed to a man in battle.


Whether their opponents are good enough to see this or not is a different matter but I would suggest that congratulating them for allowing this to happen through making strategic errors doesn't help them to improve their play.

John and Q-Ball HAVE played well but let's not let that blind them or us to the mistakes they have made or they won't learn from them and improve. I tell you now that if I was the Allies in this position I would feel supremely confident of having India back fully in my control ( and several thousand IJA AV destroyed or in prison camps ) by the end of September 1942.


Taking India except for Bombay and karachi is a serious over-extension. if you can't take at least Bombay then I think you should conduct an orderly retreat from India back into Burma +/- a force at Ceylon to delay the Allies.


Enhance your calm Sir.

The problem with our India attack was the division of our troops into 3 EQUAL-sized attack groups. This mistake allowed our opponents to cobble together a Normandy-like defense. We could push but not break until a concentration was achieved.

The problem in the break-out---JUST LIKE COBRA---is that it was on the wrong flank. We broke out on the left flank where the race to dividing India was much longer then if we had broken out in the east. That was unfortunate...

Had I realized we weren't going to capture those units fleeing from eastern India, then I would have recommended to Brad about charging towards Bombay. Instead we had a Brittany-like diversion of badly needed troops to clear out Madras, Trivandrum, Mandalore, Bangalore, and Pangrim.

The best move would have been to leave all that, cut across the peninsula, and grab Bombay. Problem is that is hindsight thinking. Didn't even occur to me that we should do that. It was a serious mistake that we are now paying for.

Reality is that WE MUST TAKE BOMBAY. It cannot become a Tobruk behind our lines. Brad is deploying Base forces and Engineering units as fast as possible to build-up the bases near Bombay. Poona, Pangrim, Mandalore, and Hyderabad will be expanded enough to allow for well over 1,000 planes. We desperately need our Tojos NOW!

I have learned from Dan the value of multiple attacks over the same target. Sweep from nearby locations, Sweep from a more distant location, and then send in the Bombers! Gaining air control is priority number one...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/3/2009 7:12:11 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 698
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 7:27:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Perhaps the only other thing that should be tossed into the conversation is a reminder that this is a 2x2.  The original division of labor had Brad handling the DEI while I handled Burma and the Pacific.  As things developed I picked up New Zealand and China while Brad took on Burma and India.  While we have worked fantastically well together and have had a joint vision of things one needs to remember that we divided stuff from the outset and that has partially led to where we are right now.

I would challenge anyone to take the DEI in a more magnificent manner then Brad did.  It was masterful.

All I wanted from India was to take the eastern portion of the country so the battle for India/Burma would start farther away then IRL.  This offensive is similar to what happened in Australia with Dan when I had him pinned to Melbourne and Sydney.  As soon as I realized I could not take these locations I immediately began to redeploy and pull units out for fighting elsewhere.  The key to our situation here is to understand the same thing.
 

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 699
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 7:49:46 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I think the biggest problem in India is that I didn't understand that units move slower over the skinny RR lines. I probably plowed over 1/2 our forces in a move NW, the holdup was less the Allies and more my inexperience with land movement, particularly units marching off rail lines when I really didn't want them to. Pursuit is always slower than retreat it seems.

So, I think the problem was less a dispersion of force issue and more of a management of game engine issue. That and I think from the first landing they had planned to retreat, and had NE India cleared of troops after the initial landing.

It's clear Bombay is pretty key, but we can't do anything about it until we have airbases, which are under construction. We have plenty of planes to swamp them, just no platforms to launch from. Once we do, we should be able to turn it into rubble.

In the end, sure the Allies can bounce back in India, but other than an outright conquest of India, there are no knockout blows available in the Pacific or anywhere else, the Allies are going to bounce back regardless. At some point we will have to retreat from India, but I don't think that will be 1942, and at any rate there are plenty of ways to get out intact.

Also, as an EDIT to Nemo's comments, there is a HR preventing landings in other than base hexes, so alot of the envelopment plans you detailed wouldn't work unless they get ashore at Pangim, Mangalore, or Triv. Pangim is most likely target.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 4/3/2009 7:50:40 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 700
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 7:55:28 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		John and Q-Ball have played well; and what they've done in India is good, though not a knockout punch.

By the way, how far ARE you guys from auto-victory?  Is it still possible?


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 701
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 8:00:29 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John and Q-Ball have played well; and what they've done in India is good, though not a knockout punch.

By the way, how far ARE you guys from auto-victory?  Is it still possible?




It's 4.3 to 1 at the moment. We still have all the USAFFEE troops surrounded at Manila and Bataan, which would be a bunch of points we could draw on, and Manila is worth alot to Allies; haven't been in a hurry there, we needed the troops for India.

All depends on what the Allies take back or not before the turn. We can rack up points expanding airbases in India and NZ, which doesn't help if they change hands.

PS, I can't look of course, but is their AAR live again? It would be nice if it was.



< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 4/3/2009 8:01:33 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 702
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 8:04:25 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I think there has been one post indicating that their AAR will be resurrected, but nothing yet.

The India campaign started with the strategic objective of trying for an auto-victory and the more operational objective of cutting off and destroying Allied troops.  You guys have a shot...

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 703
Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:04:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Dan--Here is what you requested earlier.

Stopped off at home while running errands and did a quick screenshot.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 704
RE: India Proposition - 4/3/2009 9:17:48 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Enhance your calm Sir.


I'm calm. Posting something you don't like doesn't mean that the other person isn't calm and I dislike the impugnation and the fact that you would make it.


quote:

The problem with our India attack was the division of our troops into 3 EQUAL-sized attack groups.


I know, I was the person who pointed this out to you in this thread. - Post 489 in this thread in which I said " I think your problem is that your central position has invited you to dissipate your forces. Since the defender is always stronger this dissipation of your forces actually serves the defender FAR better than you. "


quote:

The problem in the break-out---JUST LIKE COBRA---is that it was on the wrong flank.


No, the problem was that your team, when you had the initiative, didn't WEIGHT your forces in order to decide which flank you would break out on. Consequently you broke out on the flank the enemy could most afford you to break out on ( and thus had committed less force to ). The problem was that you left it to chance instead of utilising the initiative to decide on the shape the battlefield would take.

I offer this in the spirit of inviting analysis of your mistakes so that you improve and play better next time which is all any of us can ever hope to do. Hell, I'm finding errors in my game vs Damian every turn and trying to learn from them.


quote:

Instead we had a Brittany-like diversion of badly needed troops to clear out Madras, Trivandrum, Mandalore, Bangalore, and Pangrim.


You didn't have it. You decided on it. It wasn't a passive thing which was pre-determined it was a thing you decided upon. I'm trying to give you the hint here that your locus of control is internal not external and that yo don't just have things happen to you but, rather, can impact HOW they unfold. This is true for life as well as games.


quote:

Didn't even occur to me that we should do that. It was a serious mistake that we are now paying for.


This raises two questions:
1. Did you read other AARs where India was taken? I ask becase when I invaded India vs 2nd ACR my whole gameplan was based on iolating the enemy main force in Calcutta by driving north-east toward Delhi from Trivandrum and taking Bombay and Karachi on the cheap ( since the rail net was cut by the troops making for Delhi ).

2. I and others counselled for the race to Bombay to occur. I don't see why it couldn't have occurred to you when others were urging it openly and/or privately.

I refer again to post 489 in which I said
quote:

I think your priority right now must be to dislocate the enemy line to your west such that you can re-orient your centre of mass and drive in a north-eastward direction.


The advice was there approximately one month ago, in plenty of time to prevent the transfer to Bombay which now stymies you. North-east from where you were then was, obviously, Delhi.


I think your following post is interesting and actualy the nub of the issue.

Operationally and tactically I think you and QBall are playing good games BUT strategically you are engaging in mission creep, unclear objectives which invite mission creep and a failure to decisively concentrate force in order to control the future shape of the battlefield.

In short you are in the position of a ships crew who are letting the wind blow them hither and thither while the powerful onboard motor remains unused. If you played as well strategically as you do operationally and tactically India would be yours.


quote:

It's clear Bombay is pretty key, but we can't do anything about it until we have airbases, which are under construction. We have plenty of planes to swamp them, just no platforms to launch from. Once we do, we should be able to turn it into rubble.


So, even with Zeroes with a range of 10 to 11 hexes you have NO Level 2 airfields from which you can launch sweeps? I find that hard to believe. If you can't do what you want ( 1000 planes etc ) then surely there must be something you can do with smaller numbers from fewer fields? You don't have the luxury of time to build those fields. You need to hit with what you have now, even if it appears too little.


< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 4/3/2009 9:27:36 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 705
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:22:27 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Allies only suffer strategic losses in Australia and USA, as far as I know.


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 706
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:28:57 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Allies only suffer strategic losses in Australia and USA, as far as I know.




The answer to John's question on Strategic Losses: I acheived ONE Resource hit at Perth from a Betty raid, remember? A good hit though. I may do that again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 707
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:32:11 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Nemo, this is a game and you're coming on way to strong; then, when they reply equally strong, you suddenly "resent the impugnation."  These guys are sinking hours and hours into a game; they realize they aren't perfect, but they are entitled to enjoy themselves without folks weighing in with countless pages of hyper-analysis and criticism.  You'd make an excellent drill sergeant or football coach, but a poor teacher. Back down a bit (IMHO).

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 708
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:43:31 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We're OK.  Nemo--Dan isn't used to your style or way of saying things but it does come across as Dan just described.  I've had nearly a year of you pointing out everything and have somewhat gotten used to it.  I've learned a lot but it takes a semi-thick skin to hear it (over and over).

As to the strategic loss points...that cannot be because of Australia can it?  I never remember gaining any strategic points when I was moving through Aussieland in Forlorn Hopes.  It must be from India I think! 

Does anyone know the which way this question falls?



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 709
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:49:05 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		2 points:

1. I've always said... If someone doesn't want to hear it then just ask me to stop and I will.


2. I don't post to most threads here because most people play and do moderately well and get congratulated moderately but when people start deluding themselves in their analysis then I think it is worth stepping in.


I'll take it though that neither QBall, John3rd or Canoerebel care for the analysis ( which is perfectly fine ) and I'm not about to post things which they can't see as being constructive. That's cool, I don't want to waste anyone's time with feedback they don't like. Life's way too short


Canoerebel - My issue is not with them disagreeing with me ( that's cool and a part of good debate ) BUT, rather, having an emotional state tagged onto an analysis which isn't warranted. If they disagree with me then that's good as it'll foster debate and get them thinking. Assigning motivations and emotions to me beyond trying to give good feedback is a different matter though.

As to being a good drill sergeant. LOL!!! In medicine someone who can't take a good objective analysis of where they went wrong, why and how they can improve is going to kill a lot of patients during his training. What I engage in here is only a scintilla compared to what occurs in medical training here in Ireland. It is objective, ruthless and utterly focussed on turning out good doctors who give you the best chance of surviving when you present... but I do realise that in the modern world it is rare to be in a career in which objective, harsh assessment by others ( and of yourself by oneself ) is common. Its a pity, it definitely turns out better doctors than wrapping them in wool and telling them they're wonderful no matter how many patients they kill.


Strategic Losses:
Oz and CONUSA. When the game was designed Japanese assaults into other regions weren't really taken into account in the coding.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 4/3/2009 9:57:22 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 710
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 9:57:41 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

We're OK.  Nemo--Dan isn't used to your style or way of saying things but it does come across as Dan just described.  I've had nearly a year of you pointing out everything and have somewhat gotten used to it.  I've learned a lot but it takes a semi-thick skin to hear it (over and over).

As to the strategic loss points...that cannot be because of Australia can it?  I never remember gaining any strategic points when I was moving through Aussieland in Forlorn Hopes.  It must be from India I think! 

Does anyone know the which way this question falls?


No strat points for India; you do get strat points for BOMBING Australian industry/resources/etc. You don't (apparently) get them for just taking bases in Australia. (Had I known that the Japs could get strategic points in Australia in my game with John, I would've had a heart attack. A case of "ignorance is bliss').

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 711
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 10:00:26 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Nemo, I enjoy reading your analysis and you're welcome to post in my AARs.  But you can get overly critical.  This is a game, not the life-and-death-on-the-line medical school.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 712
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 10:05:59 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As to the strategic loss points...that cannot be because of Australia can it?  I never remember gaining any strategic points when I was moving through Aussieland in Forlorn Hopes.  It must be from India I think! 

Does anyone know the which way this question falls?


You get points for bombing industry in Australia. You could have flattened the industry in Australia and racked up points. TAKING it doesn't get you points, just destroying it.

Too bad, maybe you would have auto-victoried.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 713
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 10:26:49 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		I would say that Nemo is practicing a little "Reality Therapy." Yes, that is an actual form of therapy and often something I use when dealing with teenagers (and John ). Considering the different pace of this game when it comes to naval vs land warfare, it is a difficult mindset to shift effectively from one to another. Its like a good chess player, having to think multiple moved ahead when it come to land combat (includes movement).

Nemo reminds me of my immediate supervisor when I first started working with teenagers - very direct, but very supportive. It took me some time to get use to him, but now when we talk it is something I find very helpful. Nemo can come over to my new AAR and offer whatever advice he wants. I actually ask for it most of the time. 

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 714
RE: Late-May VP - 4/3/2009 10:39:19 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Ah, william Glasser. Reality therapy it was but, obviously, for such therapy to work people need to be receptive. Better to abandon the therapy rather than ruin the possibility for the next therapist to foster a therapeutic relationship using a different modality which might be more acceptable. I'm sure you understand my point here precisely.

P.s. I saw your AAR. Most impressive achievements I must say. I would have posted but felt that it would be trite given how well things were going. I'll re-examine now though.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 4/3/2009 10:40:24 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 715
RE: Late-May VP - 4/4/2009 12:18:17 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This, as opposed, to how POORLY we are doing here!  

I have no issue with things it simply drives me nuts when you belabor a point and heartily enjoy reminding us with "I told you so."  Can handle that but when it is said repeatedly it gets rather tedious.  You KNOW I like, want, and encourage the advice.  It just goes a bit too far at times. 

By any real standard of play what Brad and I have done is amazing.  This has been accomplished by having a strategic plan at the onset of the war.  We have achieved everything we wanted and done so at little cost.  I note that the largest ship we had lost is a light cruiser.  We have done well; however, it hasn't been perfect.  This is where some analysis comes in for future reference and critique.

Having two Therapists (three if you include Nemo) tends to drive one a bit more loopy then 'normal.'  At least I have one I trust (Michael), one I respect (Nemo), and one I hate (Ken).  Maybe this means there is some form of Therapist 'balance' in my life!  


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 716
RE: Late-May VP - 4/4/2009 1:10:02 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		I'm not here in my role as a therapist ( although I do obviously use whatever minor psychological insights I might garner to inform my play and thought ). So, you have two therapists and another guy you'll never meet who offers some thoughts in an effort to present a different viewpoint and bring things back to objective reality from time to time. MY comments should be given no more weight than such an ephemeral and distant "position" warrants.


I would also point out, again not relating to your AAR ( as I won't comment on it in future - not out of spite but because when comments aren't felt to be helpful then it isn't helpful to make comments. That's true in both my job and private life. ), that my saying Mike is doing well does not carry any obverse impugnation of your play. I can say he does well without implying you are doing poorly. Him doing well ( or poorly ) has no impact on your game. You and Mike aren't in a zero sum game in which one doing well necessitates the other doing poorly. I feel it is a pity that you would assume I might imply such a link.

As to my "enjoying" telling you "I told you so". No, I wanted to help you see an issue relating to a gap in your thinking which I can track in both AARs and which negatively impacts your play. I was seeking to be helpful to you based on my belief that what matters is not whether one plays well or badly in this game but that one plays better in the next game. Also, any ego satisfaction I require I get from areas other than belittling of others through snide and opaque means on the internet. If there was belabouring of the point then it was done because you weren't "getting" the point I was trying to make and not because I was "enjoying" belittling you. I was trying to help you see a strategic error you were making which arises out of a persistent cognitive style ( disregarding as undoable that which you CHOOSE not to do --- or, as I like to think of it "The Ardennes Flaw") I can see in your two ongoing AARs. That, to me, is not something which is associated with either positive or negative emotions. I don't feel good or bad about saying that, it just is. And, of course, I may be utterly wrong and have completely erroneously assessed the situation.

And to re-iterate. You've done well but I just thought that it might be possible to highlight a flaw I've noted in both AARs in order to help you play even better next time. That was all. No more, no less and with no game-related subtext.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 4/4/2009 1:16:08 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 717
RE: Late-May VP - 4/4/2009 2:47:13 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'm not here in my role as a therapist ( although I do obviously use whatever minor psychological insights I might garner to inform my play and thought ). So, you have two therapists and another guy you'll never meet who offers some thoughts in an effort to present a different viewpoint and bring things back to objective reality from time to time. MY comments should be given no more weight than such an ephemeral and distant "position" warrants.


I would also point out, again not relating to your AAR ( as I won't comment on it in future - not out of spite but because when comments aren't felt to be helpful then it isn't helpful to make comments. That's true in both my job and private life. ), that my saying Mike is doing well does not carry any obverse impugnation of your play. I can say he does well without implying you are doing poorly. Him doing well ( or poorly ) has no impact on your game. You and Mike aren't in a zero sum game in which one doing well necessitates the other doing poorly. I feel it is a pity that you would assume I might imply such a link.

As to my "enjoying" telling you "I told you so". No, I wanted to help you see an issue relating to a gap in your thinking which I can track in both AARs and which negatively impacts your play. I was seeking to be helpful to you based on my belief that what matters is not whether one plays well or badly in this game but that one plays better in the next game. Also, any ego satisfaction I require I get from areas other than belittling of others through snide and opaque means on the internet. If there was belabouring of the point then it was done because you weren't "getting" the point I was trying to make and not because I was "enjoying" belittling you. I was trying to help you see a strategic error you were making which arises out of a persistent cognitive style ( disregarding as undoable that which you CHOOSE not to do --- or, as I like to think of it "The Ardennes Flaw") I can see in your two ongoing AARs. That, to me, is not something which is associated with either positive or negative emotions. I don't feel good or bad about saying that, it just is. And, of course, I may be utterly wrong and have completely erroneously assessed the situation.

And to re-iterate. You've done well but I just thought that it might be possible to highlight a flaw I've noted in both AARs in order to help you play even better next time. That was all. No more, no less and with no game-related subtext.


Now I have to say that this note truly got to me in a good way! Perhaps this tone works with me therapeutically...

I LOVE "the Ardennes Flaw." It is entirely true and I can admit that without any issue. Keep in mind that my partner (who has remained MUTE nearly the whole day) and I have settled upon this strategy together. Perhaps we both suffer from this new mental illness!

Thank You Nemo. That was instructive.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 718
RE: India Proposition - 4/4/2009 11:15:22 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Once you have Bombay you should be able to use Bettys and CVEs and CVLs basing frmo Bombay to prevent resupply from Aden. If the Allies only get 6,000 tons of supplies per month as auto-supply then you should be able to starve them out with ground bombardments and airstrikes over the course of many months.


Does anybody know if the auto-resources Bombay gets also produce supplies like normal resource centers? If that is the case then the Allies get a total of 12.000 tons supply / month at each location which will make starving them harder.

Also is there any indication that the Allies are shipping in supplies from Aden? Considering the current situation they should be trying to get as much transferred as possible before multiple lvl. 4 AFs make this suicidal.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 719
RE: India Proposition - 4/4/2009 3:52:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Good Question.

There is a lot of activity moving through there and our SS have been doing quite well.  Only problem is that the Brits have excellent ASW and we have been losing SS.  We have an economic update in a few dates so I'll detail the SS--ASW Action a bit more.  This is the first game that I have actually kept specific, written track of each Subs sinkings.

We actually have a Submarine ACE!  I-153 has sunk 5 AK and damaged a 6th!  Her crew has all been promoted an extra rank and get a liberal bonus in their Sake rations!

The auto-supply issue SUCKS.  We'll see what happens...



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 720
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Bombay Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.531