Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The key phrase is peacetime needs. People don't need cars and other consumer goods when there's a war on.

Absolutely correct...except that practically none of the Japanese people had cars or significant quantities of consumer goods before the war. They did have to eat though. Do you know any really good recipes for grass? The Times of Tokyo does. Perhaps you can get them to dig out some back issues and translate them into English (or whatever is convenient).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

OK, I did go read a bunch of your AAR. Began in June and read/skimmed through page 25 just about into October 1942. Other than brief mentions of the attempt in June where it was pointed out that a lone Chinese unit controlled a hexside on the path so it wasn't open, I didn't see a long discussion. There was some exchange with Squeeze about using loading takers to "goose" flows into Fusan from possibly Chinese sources, and speculation that the large fleet withdrawals at Singers was keeping flows from exiting there that month, but I didn't see other. Was it later?

Aside, I had never read the China negotiation portion of either of you two's AARs. Without commenting on the strat bombing ban (!!) I did think your map of potential Allied 4E bombing from Ledo was pretty creative. Not only the assumed ranges (Ledo to Canton!) or that you left out minor industrial centers like Shanghai and Port Arthur, but that you tried to argue that 4Es would fly 20 hexes from Ledo into CAP. Ever. I can't get mine to fly into air superiority from ten hexes.

It's kind of a sporadic discussion, but certainly not 'hush hush.'

Here is one of the major posts with replies on and off down that page:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3062465


I aso admit I have learned a lot during this game, my first real PBEM, and so my thinking about a lot of things has changed.

Dan Nichols in Post 408 after the June 1 turn post: "Are you completely sure that you "own" all of the hexes on the rail line/major road network? In your May 25 screen shot there is a Chinese unit sitting on the rail line to the Southwest of Changsha. "

You said next post: "Good question Dan. That may have affected things up to now I realize thinking about the sequence of things.

That little guy has been given a great big shove off the rail by and armored car unit. It's the Lusu War Area that starts in the swamp near Nanking. Not sure how it's lasted this long. I let it wander hoping it would just evaporate, and then it just kept getting in the way. So now it is off the track and won't be causing any more problems.

All of the rail is now clear."

I had to find it so could be sure I wasn't dreaming. I read the thread pretty early in the AM.

I took it to mean any data from before the last week of May was questionable about the Highway, and then there wasn't another discussion about it through October when I stopped reading.

Not a big deal, but others have reported it does work. I don't know what the betas have done. Of course, all the POL from Soerbaja, Borneo, the small sources around NG, etc. has to go by sea. But other players have reported dumping the Medan lot onto Malaysia to flow to Singers and then east, as well as the Burma stuff. I've seen discussion that it takes awhile to build, but it works pretty well by 1943.

I don't really care as I understand how complex the flow models already must be, plus knowing the Highway is there makes it a target for coastal severing later on. I was mostly responding to Spence's point about ships in port. As a submarine guy I wish it were possible to see more of how the anti-commerce sub war played out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The key phrase is peacetime needs. People don't need cars and other consumer goods when there's a war on.

Absolutely correct...except that practically none of the Japanese people had cars or significant quantities of consumer goods before the war. They did have to eat though. Do you know any really good recipes for grass? The Times of Tokyo does. Perhaps you can get them to dig out some back issues and translate them into English (or whatever is convenient).

So did Japan magically lose control of the famously fertile Chinese lowlands before 1944? What about Formosa or Korea, which were all sending food to Japan?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was to respond to Spence on why a lot of ships might be in port. If the Highway is used extensively it saves hundreds of loads, at least.

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

If it didn't work well enough for you that's fine, but it has for others. And even when Japan goes the way you did it requires further non-historic tactics such as you employed. Massive investments in air ASW primarily (which your opponent has spoken to many, many times.) I have my own feelings on the submarine portion of the game, but I've related them elsewhere. Even with the investments you made there would not have been the huge number of sinkings you've achieved.

And I also pointed out that using the Highway is not cost-free. It requires a pristine route be maintained for several thousand miles. That works for the mid-game but it offers the Allies a new set of pressure points in the end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

And of course it, like a lot of other points in the game, makes it a more "balanced" game and gives the JFB's less claim that "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies".

Once again , a paraphrasing of the famous quote comes to mind ..."a game designed by geniuses to be played by.....well , let's just say Non-geniuses".

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was to respond to Spence on why a lot of ships might be in port. If the Highway is used extensively it saves hundreds of loads, at least.

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

If it didn't work well enough for you that's fine, but it has for others. And even when Japan goes the way you did it requires further non-historic tactics such as you employed. Massive investments in air ASW primarily (which your opponent has spoken to many, many times.) I have my own feelings on the submarine portion of the game, but I've related them elsewhere. Even with the investments you made there would not have been the huge number of sinkings you've achieved.

And I also pointed out that using the Highway is not cost-free. It requires a pristine route be maintained for several thousand miles. That works for the mid-game but it offers the Allies a new set of pressure points in the end.

Got it.

I would still disagree that there are a lot of players using this resource highway and trying 'not to wave it around.' Who are these players that it worked for not waving? Pax is the one I know of who can make it work regularly. I'd love to see how someone else worked it out in a PBEM game and how that went, simply so I can understand the game mechanics better. I am now committed to shipping for myself. It's one of those things that I just think is right, and it's also a lot of fun to manage.

I just find these comments suprising from someone who advocates so strongly using the game as the designers constructed it. These things are in game right? The same as so many non-historical things that are more often talked about.

The non-historical ASW air coverage I've used has been used by most other Japanese players and is also part of game design. I think subs should be less easily hit by ASW air from both sides. They should be less vulnerable to Japanese DCs. Radar should work to get the sub under before it's nailed. But it doesn't.

The game is abstract. As you've stated, you either have HRs and battle over the lines drawn, or you don't and you both trust the design as created and use it as you wish. Right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

And of course it, like a lot of other points in the game, makes it a more "balanced" game and gives the JFB's less claim that "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies".

Once again , a paraphrasing of the famous quote comes to mind ..."a game designed by geniuses to be played by.....well , let's just say Non-geniuses".

No one here is claiming "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies."

This is a discussion about convoys and shipping. Why there is so much sitting around.

I for one who play the Japanese side in PBEM, the Allied side against the AI (so far) think it's interesting that there is a glut of ships. Also that the Babes have addressed this with limited cargo capacity. Obviously they felt it to be an issue, and I do as well.

I think it would be more interesting for Japanese and Allied players to have the constriction of being at the limits of resource hauling ability (maybe only in the beginning for the Allies) with the fleets so it would put more demands on industry, escorting and other logistical planning factors. This would take some of the extremes out of the game for both sides. It would be harder for the Japanese to extend the Empire to unhistorical levels like India. It would be harder to convoy effectively with the dearth of escorts early for both sides. it might push the Allied advance back to later dates with the difficulty getting enough supply, units and fuel to the South Pacific and beyond.

Hopefully that would lead to even more understanding of the situation each side faced in the war while keeping the game challenging and letting each player find solutions to the problem. Maybe even what you term balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

And of course it, like a lot of other points in the game, makes it a more "balanced" game and gives the JFB's less claim that "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies".

Once again , a paraphrasing of the famous quote comes to mind ..."a game designed by geniuses to be played by.....well , let's just say Non-geniuses".

No one here is claiming "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies."

This is a discussion about convoys and shipping. Why there is so much sitting around.

I for one who play the Japanese side in PBEM, the Allied side against the AI (so far) think it's interesting that there is a glut of ships. Also that the Babes have addressed this with limited cargo capacity. Obviously they felt it to be an issue, and I do as well.

I think it would be more interesting for Japanese and Allied players to have the constriction of being at the limits of resource hauling ability (maybe only in the beginning for the Allies) with the fleets so it would put more demands on industry, escorting and other logistical planning factors. This would take some of the extremes out of the game for both sides. It would be harder for the Japanese to extend the Empire to unhistorical levels like India. It would be harder to convoy effectively with the dearth of escorts early for both sides. it might push the Allied advance back to later dates with the difficulty getting enough supply, units and fuel to the South Pacific and beyond.

Hopefully that would lead to even more understanding of the situation each side faced in the war while keeping the game challenging and letting each player find solutions to the problem. Maybe even what you term balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

As for ASW, it and several other naval model behaviors stem from the utter reliance on DL in the models. It's what GG went with so long ago. It works to an extent, but IMO it under-recognizes the true value of wartime advances in sensors that favored the Allies by orders of magnitude. I've read post-war intel team reports on what they found when they tore into IJN ASW suites on their escorts. The disparities with the USN's equivalent systems were stark. In the game the DL can spike from a single air ASW hit and it stys spiked for a phase. In RL it would be minutes, as the circle of probably error spread geometrically with the sub submerged. If there were a modification to the DL code allowing for different behavior for subs versus surface ships it would help, but that's a WITP2 issue. If that one ever comes I hope some sensor modeling could be included. It was really, really important, air, surface, and submerged all three.

In the air and surface models sensors don't make or break the on-map behavior of the assets. In the sub war they do IMO. I have never seen an AAR that describes RL sub victory totals of even half of what was achieved. In some games it's 10%. On balance subs were far more important to the victory than was carrier air, and certainly LBA. But in the game many players treat them as a bother.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

And of course it, like a lot of other points in the game, makes it a more "balanced" game and gives the JFB's less claim that "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies".

Once again , a paraphrasing of the famous quote comes to mind ..."a game designed by geniuses to be played by.....well , let's just say Non-geniuses".

No one here is claiming "the game is so slanted in favor of the allies."

This is a discussion about convoys and shipping. Why there is so much sitting around.

I for one who play the Japanese side in PBEM, the Allied side against the AI (so far) think it's interesting that there is a glut of ships. Also that the Babes have addressed this with limited cargo capacity. Obviously they felt it to be an issue, and I do as well.

I think it would be more interesting for Japanese and Allied players to have the constriction of being at the limits of resource hauling ability (maybe only in the beginning for the Allies) with the fleets so it would put more demands on industry, escorting and other logistical planning factors. This would take some of the extremes out of the game for both sides. It would be harder for the Japanese to extend the Empire to unhistorical levels like India. It would be harder to convoy effectively with the dearth of escorts early for both sides. it might push the Allied advance back to later dates with the difficulty getting enough supply, units and fuel to the South Pacific and beyond.

Hopefully that would lead to even more understanding of the situation each side faced in the war while keeping the game challenging and letting each player find solutions to the problem. Maybe even what you term balance.

Might I humbly remind you that this is a game , not a simulation? It is what it is. What we take from it is what we take, we are not likely to find some deep dark secret that generations of historians before us have missed. If it helps you understand the war better (as I think most of us do) that is a bonus , not an intention. The designers have tried to the best of their abilities, budgets, and existing technology (at the time the game engine was created) to do a really incredibly good job of making a "relatively" accurate game that was incredibly fun to play. My comment was meant only to praise those designers, developers , pre-testers, researchers and everyone else that had a hand in this games birth and expansion. If I have any criticism of any body (and anyone knows me knows this is a hobby horse of mine) is those people who continually fault them, thinking themselves smarter. I was not slamming you , or anyone else in this thread, I was simply reiterating my respect and admiration of the design team. PERIOD.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was to respond to Spence on why a lot of ships might be in port. If the Highway is used extensively it saves hundreds of loads, at least.

"Secret" was a poor choice of a word. What I meant was the mechanism is a very large non-historical tactic that Japan players don't like to wave around as it makes the naval game much easier and different than history. Not that you can't find discussion of it.

If it didn't work well enough for you that's fine, but it has for others. And even when Japan goes the way you did it requires further non-historic tactics such as you employed. Massive investments in air ASW primarily (which your opponent has spoken to many, many times.) I have my own feelings on the submarine portion of the game, but I've related them elsewhere. Even with the investments you made there would not have been the huge number of sinkings you've achieved.

And I also pointed out that using the Highway is not cost-free. It requires a pristine route be maintained for several thousand miles. That works for the mid-game but it offers the Allies a new set of pressure points in the end.

Got it.

I would still disagree that there are a lot of players using this resource highway and trying 'not to wave it around.' Who are these players that it worked for not waving? Pax is the one I know of who can make it work regularly. I'd love to see how someone else worked it out in a PBEM game and how that went, simply so I can understand the game mechanics better. I am now committed to shipping for myself. It's one of those things that I just think is right, and it's also a lot of fun to manage.

I just find these comments suprising from someone who advocates so strongly using the game as the designers constructed it. These things are in game right? The same as so many non-historical things that are more often talked about.

The non-historical ASW air coverage I've used has been used by most other Japanese players and is also part of game design. I think subs should be less easily hit by ASW air from both sides. They should be less vulnerable to Japanese DCs. Radar should work to get the sub under before it's nailed. But it doesn't.

The game is abstract. As you've stated, you either have HRs and battle over the lines drawn, or you don't and you both trust the design as created and use it as you wish. Right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What you might be seeing are the dregs of the Japanese navy - the little xAKLs that can only carry like 82 tons of cargo - they are not worth building, but some people build them and sit them around as decoys - they absorb shells, bombs and torpedoes just as well as useful ships. I know in my current PBeM I have stopped most of them from building, they only cost 1 point a turn but I see no use for them - even barges have a better use than the 82 ton cargo haulers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development

quote:

ORIGINAL: duettoalfa

to go back to the thread title: am I wrong to say that 1-ship TFs are much more likely to go unseen by naval search?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

I did say that puting more effort into China should have also meant increasing additional upgrades to other areas. I was not implying this capacity was available in the real war because Japan did not have the capacity as you point out. But as a player, if I increase my operations in China, then I am 'pretending' if you will, that I AM upgrading the capacties so this kind of transportation is doable. Even though the game has no method to actually do this.

Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So this does work, I have used it. I justifty this because I had to put more resoures/troops into China to clear the path to start with. So this to me could represent building a better infrastructure to support the additional troops, etc. so something like this was feasiable in RL.

I was sorta with you until here. To think Japan could have built pipelines from Malaysia to Shanghai or fielded tens of thousands of RR tank cars, plus locomotives, plus track maintenance troops in a year under wartime conditions is not valid. There's a reason they used tankers; there was no other way.

I did say that puting more effort into China should have also meant increasing additional upgrades to other areas. I was not implying this capacity was available in the real war because Japan did not have the capacity as you point out. But as a player, if I increase my operations in China, then I am 'pretending' if you will, that I AM upgrading the capacties so this kind of transportation is doable. Even though the game has no method to actually do this.

Of course if you really want to play a game where you do have the ability to change/upgrade infrastructure/supply thruput capacities, then Hearts of Iron III is your only option At least the only one I know of on this scale. It will be interesting to see what new feature HoI IV will bring as it was just announced to be in development

It would NOT be possible, no matter what you would do. Building the infrastructure from Singapore to Shanghai or even further into Korea would take far longer than the war lasted, it would even take longer nowadays,
let alone 70 years ago and Japan had NOT the capabilities to do so, no matter what you think or have done in the game. There is so much fantasy in Japanese gameplay but trying to justify the magic pipeline from
Malaya to Japan is close to total BS, sorry. The argument alone that you "are upgrading the capacities" makes it obvious that you are not really into infrastructure building of real life when you think that bringing
additional troops and support into China to kick ass there would create a magic pipeline plus an additional modern railway system to transport the ressources too.

It just wouldn't happen, fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego.

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego.

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But I fail to undrstand why any of this really matters to any AFB. Even if Japan gets an AV, if the game continues, the Allies still have a 90% chance of winning. I could have gotten an AV as Japan in my PBEM game but did not and I still lost in '45. Is getting beat up in '42 so bad? It is NOTHING compared to the beatdown Japan gets in '45

If we're pretending I want a 688 SSN. Just one. I'll even base it in San Diego.

If I get an AV upon my head I would not ask to continue. I lost.

Getting beat up in 1942 is pretty bad. It lasts longer than Japan's in most games. Even in a bad Japan game they never don't have an air force. I think that's the worst part of 1942 for the Allies. Month after month of big sweeps and troops bombing, and not much to do but take it.

I guess that is because a lot of JFBs don't play to the end? I played into '45 and I can tell you that the beatdown I was getting lasted a LOT longer than what I did in '42 . And it IS worse for JFBs because you KNOW there is NOTHING you can do to stop it. Occassionaly you can slow it down, but there is no way you can hold something the Allies really want.

No matter how bad things get for the Allies in '42, at least you know you WILL be able to stop it and then retaliate. A huge difference imho anyway.