RE: Victory Disease

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: Victory Disease

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 9:06:11 PM

Canoerebel

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

To be honest, the contest was decided when you pounced into the DEI and Cuttlefish (a) wasn't in a position to hurt you badly enough to blunt your momentum in a big way, and (b) was caught on the wrong foot with apparently most of his assets far away - including the men needed to garrison and defend the vitals of the DEI. A decisive carrier battle loss just hastens the inevitable. No doubt Cuttlefish could put up a stout defense for a long time to come, but it really doesn't matter. I doubt this game will go very much further.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 721

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 9:10:10 PM

Zacktar

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I doubt this game will go very much further.

I hope it does go much further. At most, this battle means that the tide has turned; it's not remotely the end of the war. It's probably impossible for Cuttlefish to regain the initiative at this point, but there's no reason the Allied offensive shouldn't be as interesting as the Japanese one.

_____________________________

Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 722

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 9:23:57 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Cuttlefish gave me more detail. That CV TF ran into my PTs during the night off Namlea and withdrew....back to where they started, south of Ambon. Daybreak found them there, where the USN CVs destroyed them. All other IJN CVs were well away by then. That's what happened.

Cuttlefish is a good sport and would absolutely play through anyway, but is that fair? Or fortunes of war?

You can debate while I am on my Beef Run!

I, personally, would allow Cuttlefish to redo this turn. First, retreating not towards the home port but towards the enemy, is an obvious bug in the AI routine. Second, and more importantly, while vagaries of random luck and dumb AI moves are important parts of the game, instantly deciding the course of the entire war because of that just doesn't seem like fun for me. Looking at things realistically, with KB gone you can effectively shut DEI down within a few months and there is nothing that can even slow you down. Then probably move to Marianas by autumn of 1943. I wouldn't like a sudden removal of about 6 months from the war not because I planned a good trap, but because my opponent was accidentaly shafted by AI.

< Message edited by FatR -- 2/12/2010 9:30:20 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 723

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 9:27:02 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To be honest, the contest was decided when you pounced into the DEI and Cuttlefish (a) wasn't in a position to hurt you badly enough to blunt your momentum in a big way, and (b) was caught on the wrong foot with apparently most of his assets far away - including the men needed to garrison and defend the vitals of the DEI.� A decisive carrier battle loss just hastens the inevitable.� No doubt Cuttlefish could put up a stout defense for a long time to come, but it really�doesn't matter.� I doubt this game will go very much further.

I certainly don't want to be branded as a cynic or skeptic, but I respectfully disagree.

The game was not a preordained conclusion because Q-ball successfully took Ambon or Timor. The game will not be won by an allied player that pays a terrible butcher's bill for the Moluccan islands, the Vogelkop or Timor. It goes well beyond that.

Had Cuttlefish's counterinvasion effort of Ambon been successful and his CVs undemolished, we'd be having a very different conversation now about this game. The outcome to this game has not been decided by Cuttlefish's ineffectual initial response to the DEI landings, but how much he had to 'pay' for the Ambon attack because of lady luck.

Q-ball's efforts (flawless, by the way sir-most impressive show) in the DEI forced the battle, but without a seam in his integrated defense. Had it swung differently, it may have set Q-ball back months. But, serendipity favors the prepared mind. To the victor go the spoils and all that.

[unrelated non-sequitor NOT HIJACK ATTEMPT @Q-ball: we get 1/2 a cow annually. Use the 'cube steak' for chicken fried or salisbury steak. Mmmm....]

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 724

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 9:40:03 PM

Canoerebel

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

I also tried to make it clear in my previous post and my previous posts in this AAR that I realize that there is alot of war ahead and that Cuttlefish, being both experienced and a good player, will make it difficult and expensive for the Allies.

That said, Q-Ball's invasion of the DEI indeed decided the game's outcome.� It's been said before by many players that there are only two real objectives for the Allies - neutralizing the DEI and getting bases to permit strategic bombing of Japan.� For Q-Ball to get a massive hold in the DEI so early sealed the outcome.� It also put Cuttlefish in the position of having to act in desperation, which usually means things will go awry and bad luck will ensue at the most inopportune moments.

My observation isn't a slight against Cuttlefish nor am I ignoring the fact that alot of war remains to be fought.� But Q-Ball's DEI invasion determined the game's outcome.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 725

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 9:42:20 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I also tried to make it clear in my previous post and my previous posts in this AAR that I realize that there is alot of war ahead and that Cuttlefish, being both experienced and a good player, will make it difficult and expensive for the Allies.

That said, Q-Ball's invasion of the DEI indeed decided the game's outcome.� It's been said before by many players that there are only two real objectives for the Allies - neutralizing the DEI and getting bases to permit strategic bombing of Japan.� For Q-Ball to get a massive hold in the DEI so early sealed the outcome.� It also put Cuttlefish in the position of having to act in desperation, which usually means things will go awry and bad luck will ensue at the most inopportune moments.

My observation isn't a slight against Cuttlefish nor am I ignoring the fact that alot of war remains to be fought.� But Q-Ball's DEI invasion determined the game's outcome.

Sure. Understood completely. But Q-ball's DEI invasion didn't necessarily determine the game's outcome.

Cheers.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 726

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 10:11:02 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Cuttlefish gave me more detail. That CV TF ran into my PTs during the night off Namlea and withdrew....back to where they started, south of Ambon. Daybreak found them there, where the USN CVs destroyed them. All other IJN CVs were well away by then. That's what happened.

Cuttlefish is a good sport and would absolutely play through anyway, but is that fair? Or fortunes of war?

You can debate while I am on my Beef Run!

I, personally, would allow Cuttlefish to redo this turn. First, retreating not towards the home port but towards the enemy, is an obvious bug in the AI routine. Second, and more importantly, while vagaries of random luck and dumb AI moves are important parts of the game, instantly deciding the course of the entire war because of that just doesn't seem like fun for me. Looking at things realistically, with KB gone you can effectively shut DEI down within a few months and there is nothing that can even slow you down. Then probably move to Marianas by autumn of 1943. I wouldn't like a sudden removal of about 6 months from the war not because I planned a good trap, but because my opponent was accidentaly shafted by AI.

As far as the retreat goes, if they moved toward home as you suggest they should have, that would not have been a retreat. It would have been advancing through the battle they were retreating from.

As Chickenboy pointed out, CF had his carriers in a chancy position.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 727

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 10:11:04 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Double post.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 728

RE: Victory Disease - 2/12/2010 10:16:25 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Well assuming it was the full KB (6 CV) and they launched strikes against your CVs then I think its a fair outcome. However if your LBA was involved due to the retreat routine error then perhaps you need to consider a re-do.

One things for sure, if the outcome was fair then its game over for the Japs....

I'm curious why LBA involvement would make a difference?

I'm just guessing that maybe instead of his carriers retreating out of range of Q-balls LBA, they (for whatever reason) hung around, so instead of facing 150 SBDs and 50 TBFs, it was that plus 50 B17s, 50 B25s plus escorts etc........obviously we need to see Cuttlefishes report on the action before we get the full picture.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 729

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 1:44:51 AM

koontz

Posts: 274
Joined: 8/27/2009
Status: offline

[/quote]
Four fleet IJN carriers sunk in one engagement due to some crummy luck? That's so unrealistic!

[/quote]

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 730

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 2:14:07 AM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Chicken....I assume you have heard of the Battle of Midway? 4 IJN CVs sunk as a result of some bad luck and worse planning. It was as real as a malignate tumor. Cuttlefish's defeat might have been unlikely, but it is quite "realistic", as borne out by the annuals of history. Frankly, the resemblance of this specific engagement is remarkably like that of the historical battle.

In my view, cuttlefish made a significant error locating the KB south of Ambon and within range of known Allied LBA both north and south of his location. He limited his escape routes for no discernible gain. The invasion could have been supported from north of Ambon just as effectively as south of the island. The Kb would have been much less vulnerable to the Timor LBA The open escape hatch would have changed things in the withdrawal, too. This was not cuttlefish's finest hour.

I disagree that the result was "unrealistic". Instead, it was almost predictable.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 731

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 2:28:45 AM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Zacter, I entirely disagree with you. Barring Allied "victory disease", and I see no evidence of it, this game will not go beyond mid 44. The Allies will crush Japan over the next year as their navy and improved AC come on line. Japan is going to be on oil life support w/i 6 months. The DEI supply is definitely retarded or gone entirely within that time.

If q-ball goes toward the Phillipines as his axis of advance. the Japanese can hold Balikpapan and the Sumatran oil forever, but have no credible means of getting it to Japan thru an aluminum sky of Allied interdictory AC and subs.

Canon is probably right in saying that Japan waited too long to pounce on the Allied footholds on and around Timor. The consolidation and expansion of same was swift and well executed. Japan was doomed by its inability to prevent this initially or by immediate and decisive counter attack. However, the war would have gone on a long time had cuttlefish not lost the big CV battle.

(in reply to Zacktar)

Post #: 732

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 10:26:56 AM

Hoplosternum

Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline

I am not sure that this changes things that much. It stops the Japanese from effectively counter attacking but this operation (before the Cv disaster) had shown that a combination of the US CVs, with his LBA and fear of his surface TFs could defend the recently captured bases.

Consider what happened here. Two strikes by KB (vs the escort CVs and an accidental port strike) and he then tried to withdraw with the main allied CVs unengaged and the allied air power - even at Ambon itself -�unsupressed.

Nor have the Japanese been able to overwhelm the allied LBA even when the US CVs were not there. I am not sure the Japanese have really tried but they seem to lack the numbers to do so.

Even with the IJN CVs the allies can still move forward relatively quickly. Ambon was�initially taken swiftly. Kendari and Makassar looked to be�going to go the same way�full KB or not.

Although it takes more forces to attack the attacker does have certain advantages at this stage. Namely concentration of force. The Japanese simply don't have enough forces to dedicate the needed divisions, LBA and supply to each base Q-Ball could attack.

Even a counter invasion policy (due to the overlapping nature of the air bases) means that the japanese need to both guess right (for prepping) and be able to stand an attrition battle vs LBA and allied surface forces - before fighting toe to toe with the allied CVs. This battle showed he could not (although I think Ambon was about the worst place for him to fight as he lacked much LBA bases close by) pull that off.

I have to agree with Canoerebel that this one is lost for the Japanese now and was largely decided when the Japanese did not manage to drive the allied forces off from Timor. It's one thing to lose the island, but to not be able to at least besiege the place and make reinforcement and supply costly if not impossible. Instead it is acting as an unsinkable aircraft carrier shielding the next wave of invasions and Q-Balls ships. The Japanese can't even close down the minor island air bases to the west or stop them being resupplied!

It will be interesting to see how fast you can advance. It is still early '43 and the allies lack the planes, squadrons, ships, base forces, troops and engineers they will get throughout the year that makes them so overwhelming in '44. So it will be interesting to see if they can advance quickly in '43 and if the Japanese can still attrite them at this point (in '44 that may be hopeless but in early '43 maybe the Japanese have deeper pools than the allies?) And it will be interesting to see which way you go and whether you stay concentrated here or also add Pacific and or Burma operations to your attacking mix.

I can see why you would consider a turn redo. But I think this will just artificially slow your victory down without really changing how the game will go. We have all been enjoying this AAR (and Cuttlefishes!) but all good things come to an end. This result simply changes the war more in to your favour earlier. Sure you can now be a little more aggressive, but you were being anyway. I don't think he was beaten by a bug, but was extremely unlucky of course.�He risked KB and didn't clear an escape route or choose his battle site especially well.�While you did, despite having some bad luck yourself.

(in reply to princep01)

Post #: 733

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 12:15:26 PM

Zacktar

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

Princep, I'm not suggesting that this war will go on into 1946, I just don't want to see it cut off now, in January 1943. Yes, the shape of the game is now pretty much determined. (Somewhere in this universe, Bull Halsey is saying, "before Timor the enemy advanced at his pleasure -- after it he retreated at ours.")

But I do think it would be a shame if this game was to end now, rather than being played to its conclusion, in mid-44 or whenever it arrives.

_____________________________

Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.

(in reply to Hoplosternum)

Post #: 734

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 5:44:46 PM

jackyo123

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

i think aggressively placing his carriers a hex south of ambon was a very risky move - and unfortunately the IJN paid the penalty for this.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 735

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 5:52:42 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

VERY exceptional outcome though�I feel sorry for Cuttlefish because his basic idea was beautifully planned.
With 100% hindsight its much clearer that small tactical decisions did have a brutal impact on the battle.
And with the uncertain recon data it was only his luck that ran out. Great plan executed from both
sides and then BANG. Thats the basis for a movie...

Anyone seen "Midway" lately?

_____________________________

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 736

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 6:33:48 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jackyo123

i think aggressively placing his carriers a hex south of ambon was a very risky move - and unfortunately the IJN paid the penalty for this.

I agreee. Carrier ops in restricted waters is dangerous. Consider this: a carrier conducting normal flight ops would move almost a hex to the windward side every hour assuming the CV is moving at or around 30 kts. Just staying in what is an WiTP-AE hex for a 12 hour period would be tough for a RL CVTF. This is especially bad if your enemy is to the windward side

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to jackyo123)

Post #: 737

RE: Victory Disease - 2/13/2010 7:10:21 PM

Swenslim

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline

Cutterfish shoud use his Yamato-Musasu superforce in DEI where they could be devastating weapon - not in open and empty waters of Pacific.

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 738

RE: Victory Disease - 2/14/2010 8:51:21 PM

Fletcher

Posts: 3386
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Jerez, Spain, EU
Status: offline

Hi Q-Ball!

About Kibo Butai retreat I would like to know more data if possible:
KB Carrier TF has retreat option selected ? if not, KB has non retreat, then.. have they reaction move selected, how much hexes ? could they react to launch air strikes against enemy TF near <8 hexes after retreat from PT combat ?.. if not, then the turn shall be redone because the retreat routine must go to rearguard and not retreat to close to enemy carrier TFs....
I think only is a fair outcome if you have patrol/do not retreat option with a reaction option selected in your KB TF...If you have retreat option selected, how much hexes to react did you select ? could be interesting to know to clarify what happened !

Best of wishes and good luck

_____________________________

WITP-AE, WITE

(in reply to Swenslim)

Post #: 739

RE: Victory Disease - 2/14/2010 11:54:15 PM

Venividivici10044

Posts: 137
Joined: 8/29/2009
Status: offline

Hey,

My first foray into any AAR...I just wanted to say this one has been great!� It was a pity to see KB get hit like it did, but the fortunes of war.� Still, I doubt a commander in real life would have retreated back toward the enemy so not thrilled with the outcome. EDIT: I'm not suggesting every BAD outcome be replayed, only that illogical suicidal routines (engineered by the game engine) not consistent with reality should be reconsidered. I would only consider such though if it seriously unbalanced the game in play. END EDIT

Regards

VVV

< Message edited by Venividivici10044 -- 2/15/2010 12:10:30 AM >

(in reply to Fletcher)

Post #: 740

Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 4:33:21 AM

Q-Ball

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

Combat Report, Jan 13, 1943

I am finally back from the Beef run, and had a chance to look at the turn. It was truly a disaster for the IJN. I thank everyone for the comments, too numerous to respond to them all and it's getting late.

Overall, I think Cuttlefish made some tactical errors, and then I got lucky. The tactical errors were not detaching DDs to deal with the PTs, and also staying a couple turns in range of Allied LBA. This was not fatal, but he lost so many Zeros that for the third day, there wasn't enough CAP left over those carriers. The fact that TF strayed was luck on my part, and in the end the USN CVs, which were completely fresh, finished the job, as well as fresh LBA I flew into Lautem the day before.

Based on comments, the result will stand, though I wouldn't blame Cuttlefish for quitting at some point; it's going to get real bad real fast for the Empire.

If there are takeaways for players: 1. Send DDs to deal with PT Boats. Don't let them roam around. 2. Every day CVs tangle with LBA they get weaker; avoid that at all costs.

Battle of Banda Sea: Everyone knows by now the broad outline. Apparently the PT boats intercepted the CVs, causing a couple ships to collide, they withdraw, and otherwise are in the wrong positing at daybreak. 5 USN CVs, plus TBFs and SBDs from Lautem, and escorts from Ambon, unload on the TF. In addition to Zuikaku, Shokaku, Hiryu, and Soryu,, the Japanese for sure lose Kirishima and Mikuma, and Hiei suffered alot of damage; so much that I should be able to finish her tommorow if she didn't sink today. Losing 4 CVs is bad enough, throw in a couple KONGOS and it's REAL bad.

I should probably rename one of the reinforcement carriers USS Banda Sea now!

What Next?: I had put Kendari on temporary hold, but we are going ahead with this invasion. I need to get some transports to Koepang to pick-up units, but we should be landing in a couple weeks. This will be followed by landings at Makassar.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 741

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 5:28:04 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Well, if you give him a redo, at least make him pay for the cow. Fair is fair.......

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 742

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 6:22:21 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

Yes, and the beer too.

But I understand you may give him a redo. It's Cuttlefish afterall - and Ive got the feeling that in your guts you didn't really want this kind of virtory. You'd rather want to achieve this kind of results without the help of the AI logics, wouldn't you? Feeling a bit frustrated like if some odd guy had come to steal your candy?

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 743

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 7:01:52 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I don't see anything tainted about the battle or its outcome.

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 744

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 7:10:12 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I don't see anything tainted about the battle or its outcome.

Exactly.

War is hell.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 745

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 7:24:33 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

Yeah? Well AE is about fun too. If the guys think their fun was taken away by strange mechanics, it's their right I guess. Q-Ball has nothing to be ashamed of for this victory, but I can understand him proposing a replay for the sake of the gameplay value of this game...! You can interpret it the way you want, but it is more actually the result of the AI being unable to plan a new route in a clever way than some result from somekind of fortune of war.

When Q-Ball moved his PTs on the retreat path of the KB, he was expecting to have the chance to give a shot, not get a 4-CV 2-BB TF get bounced back because of AI logics and routine. You may start to look for anykind of excuse, like Nagumo had diarrhea or somethin - there's random part in war, but this is just the AI not being able to re-route the TF through costal hexs and forgetting its primary objective - just like you may have damaged ships sent to some port closeby which would reroute at will to some other place 10 hex away. In a way or another, this event robbed a large part of the fun to come.

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 2/15/2010 7:29:50 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 746

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 8:51:26 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Yeah? Well AE is about fun too. If the guys think their fun was taken away by strange mechanics, it's their right I guess. Q-Ball has nothing to be ashamed of for this victory, but I can understand him proposing a replay for the sake of the gameplay value of this game...! You can interpret it the way you want, but it is more actually the result of the AI being unable to plan a new route in a clever way than some result from somekind of fortune of war.

When Q-Ball moved his PTs on the retreat path of the KB, he was expecting to have the chance to give a shot, not get a 4-CV 2-BB TF get bounced back because of AI logics and routine. You may start to look for anykind of excuse, like Nagumo had diarrhea or somethin - there's random part in war, but this is just the AI not being able to re-route the TF through costal hexs and forgetting its primary objective - just like you may have damaged ships sent to some port closeby which would reroute at will to some other place 10 hex away. In a way or another, this event robbed a large part of the fun to come.

Well if someone doesn�t have fun or feels rewarded by trying to get back on track after a major defeat thats the wrong game for him anyway.

As has been said repeatedly, here and in Cuttlefishs AAR, both took risks in this operation but Cuttlefish had significantly less time to prepare
for the situation. Operating his CV�s in this area with unknown opposition was a bold move, it was well planned, but it had some glitches that
made him pay. The position of his CV force in fact invited disaster in face of defeat.

The whole discussion doesn�t take place because of a bug but because of the dire consequences of operating CV�s in confined waters without an
open retreat path. PTs in a CV TF�s rear are a pita.

The offer for replay is a generous one. I would decline, but its not our duty to decide this.

_____________________________

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 747

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 8:59:24 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

Surely it's not, and surely I agree it's really generous

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 748

RE: Battle of the Banda Sea - 2/15/2010 10:20:08 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Fishbed - Of course it is totally up to the players, and you are entitled to your opinion about the battle. My opinion differs from yours, and I was offering moral support to Q-Ball upon his decision to let the battle stand. I did this because several posters have offered their opinion that the battle was tainted by erroneous game mechanics.

We just disagree about that point.