Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ALF1

Hello,

Becouse we are speaking about me, the mythic opponent I would like to clarify. I do not want offend my opponent only ask for your oppinion becouse he accuse me be gamey. First what I would like to say I do not see anything gamey in my game but there could be different point of view which I would like to know. I will try to by specific to comments of my opponent.


1.Rangoon defence by hundert of plaine:
I pay PP to release AVG squadrons - I move them from CAF HQ(R) to the "China AIR taskForce" see picture - I do not thing is gamey They start in Burma and I keep them in Burma.

2."i wiped out 1/3 or 2/3 of his airforce since all those pilots are supposed to be in training units":
This is completlly out of reality. Picture I post is after this "wipedig out" you see 7:2 AIR kills and no killed pilot , same simmilar for other 2 AVG squadron.

See this air battle from combat report:

Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 21
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 30
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 12
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12



Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 59
Buffalo I x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 7 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK Jaladuta, Bomb hits 1
xAKL Kwai Sang, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rohna, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAP Tilawa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rajula, Bomb hits 1
xAP Santhia, Bomb hits 1


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Port hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
17 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
AVG/1st Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 11 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
AVG/2nd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
No.67 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (3 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers

Is there something to complain ? I put this quit big CAP becouse just arrived one division in Rangoon( initially planed for Singapore - now I do not remember its name)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

If you were going to keep the AVG in Burma, why spend PPs to change from CAF(HQ) to China Air Task Force?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?

Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Grow up you childish POS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?

Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.

Grow up you childish POS. I merely defended the gameplay of some one else. For you to make assumptions regarding my game play based on that is about as childish as it gets. I've been wargaming for longer than you have probably been alive and certainly don't have any need whatsoever to prove myself to the likes of you. If you had a bit more longevity on this forum you might have had the oppurtunity to witness the MANY games where China is conquered and the MANY games where India is conquered. Try defending your attacks on the gameplay of others with something more credible than mudslinging.

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

With one of my opponenets we have rule to pay pp for transfering units across borders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

With one of my opponenets we have rule to pay pp for transfering units across borders.

He did not cross a national border. He simply unrestricted the AVG. If you do not want him to do that, agree on a new houserule..

quote:

PaxMondo

Having said that, I would play your opponent. So far he hasn't done anything I would find gamey at all. In fact, he's done a couple of standard moves (re-assign AVG) and at least one novel move (attack Truk). Good Job ALF1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

With one of my opponenets we have rule to pay pp for transfering units across borders.

He did not cross a national border. He simply unrestricted the AVG. If you do not want him to do that, agree on a new houserule..

+1

As a couple of us have already said, you may not have a suitable opponent for you. You seem to be taking offense to some of his moves.

Having said that, I would play your opponent. So far he hasn't done anything I would find gamey at all. In fact, he's done a couple of standard moves (re-assign AVG) and at least one novel move (attack Truk). Good Job ALF1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nothing gamey at all about ALF1's moves. Just smart play.

There are effective counters available to the Japanese for all of these moves:

AVG: Sweep them with Zeros, and bomb the airbase at Rangoon (instead of the crap AKs in the port). The AVG P-40s, whatever their designation, has no replacements, so losses are permanent. Atrrite them, and they will go away.

B-17s: 1. Take Rabaul. 2. Don't park valuable ships within B-17 range of any Size-2 or greater Allied base; that's about 20 hexes. 3. In the DEI, LRCAP your troops he is bombing. B-17s are very tough to shoot down, but the achilles heel for those is that a) They are difficult to repair, and most Allied bases in early 42 lack adequate facilities to do so, and b) there are few replacements. Soerbaya has enough air support, but the Allies do not have any way to prevent you from bombing Soerbaya. If you damage the airstrip, B-17s will start to take alot of OPS damage, and struggle to repair it.

HQs: I don't see the problem here; the only gamey issue around HQs is spending discounted PPs to change to an HQ within the same Restricted HQ, then buying the HQ; this reduces the PP spend quite a bit, but is generally considered gamey. It's actually less gamey to buy a unit to an HQ that is not on the map, because it prevents this workaround.

quote:

However, I do have a problem with the issue that hasn't been discussed much - sending single ships (presumably xAKLs or xAKs) out in front of higher-value TFs to absorb enemy air sorties or SCTF ammo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Hmmm I sense SCL syndrome. Well played and in my book not gamey at all.