RE: February 1945

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: February 1945

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: February 1945

Page: << < prev 191 192 [193] 194 195 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:18:56 AM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Whether winning by points or by occupying the HI is the right way to 'win' is entirely up to CR and John. We should feel honored they chose to share their adventure with us. But they made it all the way to 1945. In my book, they both win.

Darn straight.

_____________________________

(in reply to pws1225)

Post #: 5761

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 8:50:38 AM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

The nuclear ASW is not specific to this mod but a "feature" of the game in general. Japans ASW ability is light years ahead of what they were capable in real life. The allies were pretty much able to sink the entire Japanese merchant fleet. Some of their failures were tactical, but mostly it was the lack of technical ability. The Japanese ASW is extreamly overpowered in the game. As to Japanese advantages in the game in particular? Could we compare the number of aircraft produced and the advanced research in this game against what additional aircraft and models the allies get? How many extra aircraft do the allies get over stock or real life? Same question for Japan. How far are the Allies able to advance key models? Same question for Japan.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5762

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 9:36:50 AM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

"The Japanese ASW is extreamely overpowered in the game"

No quite so ,John DillWorth.

We are just not repeating the mistakes made by the Japanese, who basically screw up all they could with rescpect to ASW.

Check please for a reference this recent post
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4357430

dealing with the issue, and in particular post n. 50 by InfiniteMonkey.

Countercheck with this two original document,

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/WDR58/index.html#contents1
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/dickson/ijn%20asw.pdf

one the Submarine Report by the US Hydrographic Institute, and the other by one of the top Japanese executive officers, produced in the Naval institute Proceedings of 1952.
The latter in particular is, to my taste, compelling and of flowing read.
The first, the Report, I believe constitute one of the main historical sources and references looked after by the Devs (and Gary Grigsby presumibly);

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 5763

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 10:59:42 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Have to say I don't take kindly to your trashing him behind his back.

Yes, because no one that posts here ever 'trashes' John III elsewhere?

I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telling another side how they should view the endgame from your perspective is grounds for questioning their perspective on what a 'successful' campaign looks like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks there's any precedence for an Allied uber-general/admiral remaining in charge after losing an Army in an ill-fated early offensive is delusional. Countless were removed for far less. So, by my reckoning, Dan's version of command ended after that Army was liquidated. We're just playing on for the benefit of the game. Anyone that complains about unrealistic IJA/IJN cooperation after that is completely missing the picture.

I realize I'm likely to set off a fire storm here, but that has to be the most patently idiotic thing I have ever read.

By virtue of your twisted logic, Churchill would have had no moral authority to command after the fiasco in France, or getting chased across North Africa by Rommel.

Stalin would have had to abdicate following the summer of '41.

Furthermore, given this is a game and not the war, a player has no one to be replaced by after falling on his face and has no choice but to pick himself up and carry one, unless he wants to be like the majority of Japanese players who simply quit when their day in the sun ends.

They had a titanic struggle on Sumatra at a point in time when both sides were relatively evenly matched and John come out on top. However, that doesn't mean the Allied player should throw in the towel.

I would have lost all respect for him if he did.

Very sorry for hijacking here JIII.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5764

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 11:05:45 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

"The Japanese ASW is extreamely overpowered in the game"

No quite so ,John DillWorth.

We are just not repeating the mistakes made by the Japanese, who basically screw up all they could with rescpect to ASW.

Check please for a reference this recent post
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4357430

dealing with the issue, and in particular post n. 50 by InfiniteMonkey.

Countercheck with this two original document,

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/WDR58/index.html#contents1
http://dreadnoughtproject.org/friends/dickson/ijn%20asw.pdf

one the Submarine Report by the US Hydrographic Institute, and the other by one of the top Japanese executive officers, produced in the Naval institute Proceedings of 1952.
The latter in particular is, to my taste, compelling and of flowing read.
The first, the Report, I believe constitute one of the main historical sources and references looked after by the Devs (and Gary Grigsby presumibly);

Yes, we all know that the game provides players opportunities to improve on history, at least for the Japanese side.

The Japanese side is free to improve on historical airframe production while the Allied side is strapped with historical production and replacement rates.

Please explain why the Americans are strapped with a historical dud rate they can't do ANYTHING to improve on, but the Japanese side is NOT strapped with historically ****ty ASW they cannot improve upon.

The game is FULL of inequities favoring the Japanese side. It always has been.

Allied players accept it under the guise of "making the Japanese side playable".

Just for once I would like to see Japanese players acknowledge it.

I don't for one minute begrudge a Japanese player the ability to do better than historical if he invests the effort, but I deplore the manner in which the Allies are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 12/5/2017 11:08:42 AM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 5765

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 1:25:12 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Have to say I don't take kindly to your trashing him behind his back.

Yes, because no one that posts here ever 'trashes' John III elsewhere?

I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telling another side how they should view the endgame from your perspective is grounds for questioning their perspective on what a 'successful' campaign looks like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks there's any precedence for an Allied uber-general/admiral remaining in charge after losing an Army in an ill-fated early offensive is delusional. Countless were removed for far less. So, by my reckoning, Dan's version of command ended after that Army was liquidated. We're just playing on for the benefit of the game. Anyone that complains about unrealistic IJA/IJN cooperation after that is completely missing the picture.

I realize I'm likely to set off a fire storm here, but that has to be the most patently idiotic thing I have ever read.

By virtue of your twisted logic, Churchill would have had no moral authority to command after the fiasco in France, or getting chased across North Africa by Rommel.

Stalin would have had to abdicate following the summer of '41.

Furthermore, given this is a game and not the war, a player has no one to be replaced by after falling on his face and has no choice but to pick himself up and carry one, unless he wants to be like the majority of Japanese players who simply quit when their day in the sun ends.

They had a titanic struggle on Sumatra at a point in time when both sides were relatively evenly matched and John come out on top. However, that doesn't mean the Allied player should throw in the towel.

I would have lost all respect for him if he did.

Very sorry for hijacking here JIII.

Yes, John, I'm 'sorry' for hijacking too. Right up until the point where I'm not and I post anyways.

First off, let's knock off the schoolyard ad hominem nonsense. No need for it.

Churchill is an interesting example. How did he fare after the disaster of Gallipoli? After exposing the Allies to 500,000 casualties, he was demoted, left government and nominally headed a battalion on the Western front.

Yamamoto's prestige was seriously battered after the Midway disaster. His frittering away of the remaining IJNAF strength in the Solomons and failure to force the 'final battle' left him diminished in many eyes. Nominally, he was still in charge, but it's not hard to envision a scenario in which, had he not met his fate over Bougainville in 1943, he may have been sidelined.

Ghormley was removed from theater command for nebulous 'insufficient aggression' reasons. Richardson after the disaster at Pearl Harbor (in spite of his warnings about forward deployment of the fleet). What would have happened to the Nimitz/Halsey team had they A. lost Midway and B. lost Guadalcanal?

The conduct of the war and one's performance during the war relative to RL matters, IMO. An Allied victory by superior early war strategic and tactical disposition means more in my eyes than one that is a late war bull-headed rush attained by OOB surfeit. The point total may be the same, but the conduct of the war to that point does merit consideration in who was the 'victor' and by how much.

So in my mental calculus (your 'twisted logic'), Dan would likely have been removed from command following the Sumatra debacle. No, he didn't (and shouldn't have) quit the game. But it reduces any political cache' of any Allied victory significantly. There are several real life lesser errors that resulted in loss of command. The game will never remove someone from the uber-general/admiral position. But it's absolutely fair to judge one's conduct relative to RL and the likelihood of an outcome in the prevalent sociopolitical structure of the time.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5766

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 1:29:19 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I understand now and accept the difficulty you have divorcing the fantasy of game play from reality.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5767

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 1:32:25 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I understand now and accept the difficulty you have divorcing the fantasy of game play from reality.

Glad you're able to make that distinction. Have a nice day.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5768

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 3:02:53 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Just for once I would like to see Japanese players acknowledge it.

Egads man, I am constantly acknowledging it. There are many other JFBs that point to all the gifts Japan gets -- like Pax to mention one.

Your grievance doesn't hold up....or you are very selectively responding to posts. Or maybe Japan trashed you real good and you need to point the blame somewhere else.

I think you protest too much, in short.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/5/2017 3:03:54 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5769

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 3:33:20 PM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

Sorry for the HiJack.

I understand the allied player frustrations about this game. But it is that a game. Why bitch at JIII for things that are out of his control. If you don't like something Mod it and change it, if it can be done.

I have followed JIII's mods. I have looked under the hood at what he has done. While doing my own mods (based off of JIII's). I have found that it is hard to keep a balance, especially if going for historical accuracy and plausibility. It is way to easy to accidently over power one side. From my own experience being an AFB, I have done this to the Allies multiple times in my mods. Then I have to find it out in game play or by luck. Some things have to be changed to make the game more playable for one side or the other. Try modding a game for people to play and have fun with. Its not easy.

My gripe at JIII is you say your subs are 12ins, they are only 11in. LOL

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 5770

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 3:35:37 PM

John 3rd

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

February 18, 1945

Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5771

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 3:38:21 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

Sweeps from the 1.0x10^6 John?

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5772

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 3:55:57 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Have to say I don't take kindly to your trashing him behind his back.

Yes, because no one that posts here ever 'trashes' John III elsewhere?

I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telling another side how they should view the endgame from your perspective is grounds for questioning their perspective on what a 'successful' campaign looks like.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks there's any precedence for an Allied uber-general/admiral remaining in charge after losing an Army in an ill-fated early offensive is delusional. Countless were removed for far less. So, by my reckoning, Dan's version of command ended after that Army was liquidated. We're just playing on for the benefit of the game. Anyone that complains about unrealistic IJA/IJN cooperation after that is completely missing the picture.

Chickenboy has the right of it here.

Don't forget that when this campaign ended the first time I READ all of Dan's AAR. Things said there about me--personally--and about my style of play were so over-the-top and rude that Dan had to defend me several times. It was one of the contributing factors that led him to leave the game at that time. I just rolled my eyes and said that they could simply GO TO HE**.

People have gone after Dan in this thread and sometimes I have defended him just as he has me.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/5/2017 4:04:08 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5773

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 3:57:41 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

The nuclear ASW is not specific to this mod but a "feature" of the game in general. Japans ASW ability is light years ahead of what they were capable in real life. The allies were pretty much able to sink the entire Japanese merchant fleet. Some of their failures were tactical, but mostly it was the lack of technical ability. The Japanese ASW is extreamly overpowered in the game. As to Japanese advantages in the game in particular? Could we compare the number of aircraft produced and the advanced research in this game against what additional aircraft and models the allies get? How many extra aircraft do the allies get over stock or real life? Same question for Japan. How far are the Allies able to advance key models? Same question for Japan.

I take back my umbrage Sir and apologize. You are correct with your commentary here on this game point.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 5774

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:03:17 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Sorry for the HiJack.

I understand the allied player frustrations about this game. But it is that a game. Why bitch at JIII for things that are out of his control. If you don't like something Mod it and change it, if it can be done.

I have followed JIII's mods. I have looked under the hood at what he has done. While doing my own mods (based off of JIII's). I have found that it is hard to keep a balance, especially if going for historical accuracy and plausibility. It is way to easy to accidently over power one side. From my own experience being an AFB, I have done this to the Allies multiple times in my mods. Then I have to find it out in game play or by luck. Some things have to be changed to make the game more playable for one side or the other. Try modding a game for people to play and have fun with. Its not easy.

My gripe at JIII is you say your subs are 12ins, they are only 11in. LOL

Well said DOCUP. Trying to Mod things with an interest to improvement, 'what if', and maintaining some sort of balance is a bitch. This variant of RA is a prime example. As said MANY TIMES, RA 5.0 (from five years ago) swungthe pendulum way too far out for Japan. Michael and I went back to work to create something that stuck to the vision but sought redress. Think we have managed that spectacularly with BTS and BTSL.

I'll try to fix your SS complaint DOCUP. Damn. Can't make anyone happy!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 5775

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:05:10 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

Sweeps from the 1.0x10^6 John?

YEP. The first squadron of Corsairs came in and were EATEN whole. I mean, seriously, scratch 26 F4U. No survivors...

YUMMY!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5776

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:06:07 PM

John 3rd

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

As to a thread hijack, I NEVER have an issue with that. As long as thing stay somewhat calm it is always good to explore an area of the game at any point.

_____________________________

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 #: 5777

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:28:58 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

February 18, 1945

Someone tried to take control of the air over Chinhae today. Didn't work out too well:

about equal losses in platform numbers ..are you thinking these numbers are not sustainable? or is your point you still own the skies for a day?
Does this modification allow for the surrender of Germany in May and all the allied toys coming to this theater?

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 12/5/2017 4:30:13 PM >

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5778

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:30:42 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I'll try to fix your SS complaint DOCUP. Damn. Can't make anyone happy!

Not to jump into a hijack, but I have made commentary in your mod thread. I like what you have done, and said so

I seriously think making US torps reliable from the get-go would be a perfect balance. Japan focuses more on certain aspects, forcing the U.S. to focus more on their end, therefore discovering the torpedo issue long before it was done historically. Simple, plausible, and makes everyone happy (of course, I am an unabashed AFB

)

Anywho, back to the game!

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5779

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 4:53:06 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

John recently got a new resources book on the Japanese sub fleet. So, we will be revisiting subs in general in the months ahead. While I am a AFB, I do play as Japan. Maybe a class of American subs that get better torps earlier in the war.

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 5780

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 5:03:02 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Absolutely a seriously good day in the air there.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 5781

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 5:51:04 PM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

I wonder if the Japanese had cruiser submarine designs with big guns? To add another idea for the allied subs. What about bringing forward some British subs.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 5782

RE: February 1945 - 12/5/2017 8:05:14 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Add some Dragons and Hobbits?

NO?? We will settle for ASMs and SAMs.

(Pun Alert)
Igo say, it would be Funryu.

(Funryu = Raging Dragon)

quote:

Interestingly, the Imperial Japanese Army ( IJA ) focused their work solely on perfecting air-to-surface ( ASM ) missiles while the Imperial Japanese Navy ( IJN ) strove to develop and deploy surface-to-air ( SAM ) as well as ASM missiles. The IJA's plan was spurred from directives issued by the Hoku Hombu beginning in 1943 and the IJA's program centered on the Igo ASM series. For the IJN, it was the Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho which provided the direction for the Funryu ( Raging Dragon ) series of SAMs and ASMs.

The Mitsubishi designed Igo-1-A slung beneath a Mitsubishi Ki-67 during testing conducted in the fall of 1944.

http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/hikoki_files/rocketry.html

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 12/6/2017 2:21:10 AM >

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 5783

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 7:12:47 PM

John 3rd

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

February 19, 1945

The goal in south and central China has been to occupy the enemy for as long as possible and make a disproportionate number of troops stay in the middle of nowhere stamping out the Japanese resistance. In that we have been somewhat successful. A big part of the the hold-at-all-costs strategy has been Canton. After a lengthy siege with a number of Allied attacks bloodily repulsed, this base finally falls. The assaulting units had an AV of over 5,500!

Now the troops will serve to distract and occupy the enemies attention for as long as they can hold on...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5784

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 7:42:13 PM

John 3rd

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

For the February 20th turn, I have two STF (3 CA and 5 DD/1 BC, 3 CA and 5DD) aking a thrust from Nago, Okinawa towards the Chinese Coast. They are each covered by three Daitai/Sentai of Fighters from Okinawa and the Chinese coast.

Dan has been running TFs from Ningpo and Shanghai to Formosa. My goal is to intercept them.

They have filled out FP Units and set to re-act if anything is spotted. We'll see if we can get lucky...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5785

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 7:48:52 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

We'll see if we can get lucky...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5786

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 9:13:33 PM

John 3rd

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

NICE!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 5787

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 9:36:29 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

February 19, 1945

The goal in south and central China has been to occupy the enemy for as long as possible and make a disproportionate number of troops stay in the middle of nowhere stamping out the Japanese resistance. In that we have been somewhat successful. A big part of the the hold-at-all-costs strategy has been Canton. After a lengthy siege with a number of Allied attacks bloodily repulsed, this base finally falls. The assaulting units had an AV of over 5,500!

Now the troops will serve to distract and occupy the enemies attention for as long as they can hold on...

Ouch. Some good units in the bag. What were the casualty numbers?

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5788

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 9:45:43 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

The war with Japan had been enacted in the game rooms at the War College by so many people and in so many different ways that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise absolutely nothing except the kamikaze tactics toward the end of the war. We had not visualized these.

Chester W. Nimitz

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 12/6/2017 9:46:19 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5789

RE: February 1945 - 12/6/2017 10:00:47 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

A mini-atomic explosion, USS John Burke munition ship destroyed in seconds by Japanese Kamikaze

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMs4IJQVRYM&feature=youtu.be