Alfred
Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I began reading these posts and stopped. I need to think some things through before going further. A few thoughts: 1. I am generally aware of the possibilities involved in a Japanese strategic air campaign against the continental USA. Obviously, though, the depth of my knowledge is shallow compared to the specifics that are being discussed here. 2. The reason I stopped reading was that the input given is so detailed and so well-thought-out that it threatens to tansform the game away from me vs. PH to something else. I am aware that PH is probably benefiting from Nemo's advice (either present or from prior posts), as I've stated earlier. I can't control that and I don't really mind it. But I don't want to get in the position where I fundamentally change my understanding and approach to the game in ways beyond my skill level and understanding of the situation. I'd rather take my lumps, learn, and play my game for better or for worse. 3. What struck me as I began reading the posts was the immediate idea (in my own mind) that I should turn 27th Div. around and send her to Coal Harbor. That idea isn't a product of my analysis of where she's needed, so it's totally "not me." I was the one who came up with the idea that she could best be used in Oz based upon my prior experiences in the game and my evaluation of my concerns as to where the threats lie. So turning her around would be 100% from outside input. 4. I even hesitate to post this because it may inevitably come across as ungracious to a player who has my utmost respect and who I really appreciate going to such lengths to share and teach. My stopping reading was only meant to give me time to think things through before I go too far down this road of "learning while under fire." 5. A good commander solicits and listens to good advice and acts on it. I need to weigh that against whatever instinctual reluctance I am feeling against doing so. Assuming you meant me, I'm actually not at all offended that you stopped reading. I have on several occasions in the past stated that a player is far better off implementing a second best plan for which they fully understand all the nuances, than trying to implement the objectively best plan which they however do not know all the nuances. Of course the second best plan must still be relevant to the situation in hand. Sending the 27th infantry division off to Australia is IMHO premature. But I am certainly not infallible and it may turn out that Australia needs the 27th. It is just too early to know exactly what PH has in mind. Conversely, reversing the 27th's movement orders midstream to send it to Cold Harbor may also be premature. Essentially what I would say is that the correct approach regarding the 27th is to maintain the most flexible position until the overall strategic situation is made clearer. That means having it in position to move either to Australia or to counter cheap Japanese conquests off the North American coast. Having the necessary sealift in position to send it quickly to wherever it needs to go. As it currently stands you have gambled that your opponent is focussed primarily on Australia, not the West Coast. You may be right but it is a toss of the coin not supported by any strategic information disclosed to date by your opponent. Another point to be constantly borne in mind is that no matter how detailed an AAR is, third parties are never fully appraised of all the relevant nuances of a situation. Those who are actually engaged in the match are most fully appraised of all the relevant facts. In short, provided they don't prejudge situations, the players have the best pulse on the game. What I always endeavour to do is provide a timely reminder of the old Portuguese sailors cry "albrohos". For as I say, there is always a counter to every plan. What is important is to identify what is occuring and properly analyse it. As to the potential impact of Nemo's views, you are perfectly correct. There is nothing you can do about it and there is certainly nothing wrong with your opponent accessing old, or for that matter new, posts of Nemo. My only point in raising it is to remind people to not fall into superficial analysis. For it would be generally held that Nemo is the best strategical AE analyst and therefore one should not assume that any particular course of action by the enemy has not been deeply thought through. Of course, as PH is not Nemo, we might not be seeing the optimum Japanese play. But that complacent attitude is always very dangerous. Far better to assume, until evidence to the contrary is presented, that one is confronted with optimum play perfectly executed. Alfred Alfred
|