Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I’m curious to see how the F-80s and sweeping Tokyo goes. Hope the game doesn’t end before that. It’s rare to get a game that goes this far so that particular data point is hard to come by.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Well, by killing off all of those pixelated Japanese soldiers, the pixelated Allied occupation troops will have lots of pixelated Japanese young ladies around with not enough pixelated Japanese men to comfort them on the lonely nights . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for your thoughts, MindMessing.

There was a time when I had to make that call - invade Japan or concentrate on China. It's possible the former would have driven the Allies to a quicker victory, but I didn't think so. I didn't think so then or now.

quote:

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.

quote:

I took into consideration many factors that you aren't/weren't privy to. For instance, it is essential that the Allies conquer most of China - especially big denominator bases like Chengtu and Chungking. That's more than 5,000 denominator points right there. But given the house rules and the cards I was dealt, China couldn't be reconquered without a full commitment by the Russians and/or Western Allies. The House Rules had a material impact on that, and I doubt you have any notion of those rules or how they impacted the game.

quote:

And when that tough decision was made, the Allied aircraft pools were drained and without replacements. Starting a massive, no-holds-barred air battle over Japan when I had limited resources and Erik (apparently) didn't seemed fraught with too much risk. It was better to wait until the P-51H came online, finally permitting the Allies to contest the air space over the Home Islands.

quote:

There were many other factors that led me to believe the course of action I took was the best option. I might have been wrong. Another player might've done differently and did better than I did. But I'm satisfied with the decision and feel pretty sure that a lot of players would've stepped into it with both shoes had then attacked Erik when he was still fully supplied and had the upper hand in the air war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for your thoughts, MindMessing.

There was a time when I had to make that call - invade Japan or concentrate on China. It's possible the former would have driven the Allies to a quicker victory, but I didn't think so. I didn't think so then or now.

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.

I took into consideration many factors that you aren't/weren't privy to. For instance, it is essential that the Allies conquer most of China - especially big denominator bases like Chengtu and Chungking. That's more than 5,000 denominator points right there. But given the house rules and the cards I was dealt, China couldn't be reconquered without a full commitment by the Russians and/or Western Allies. The House Rules had a material impact on that, and I doubt you have any notion of those rules or how they impacted the game.

And when that tough decision was made, the Allied aircraft pools were drained and without replacements. Starting a massive, no-holds-barred air battle over Japan when I had limited resources and Erik (apparently) didn't seemed fraught with too much risk. It was better to wait until the P-51H came online, finally permitting the Allies to contest the air space over the Home Islands.

There were many other factors that led me to believe the course of action I took was the best option. I might have been wrong. Another player might've done differently and did better than I did. But I'm satisfied with the decision and feel pretty sure that a lot of players would've stepped into it with both shoes had then attacked Erik when he was still fully supplied and had the upper hand in the air war.

Much of this is a matter of style. Nemo would have sacrificed huge numbers of ships, aircraft and troops to get into the main Japanese cities and wipe out the economy. That probably would still have allowed a winning VP ratio and he might have done in in 1944!
But that's Nemo, he has an edge on figuring out what the opposition is likely to do because he is a Psychological or Psychiatric professional.

I understand CR's approach to things because my own comfort zone for risk is similar. I see no reason to suggest his overall strategy was faulty as he knew he had a very crafty opponent who is very experienced at getting the most out of the Japanese forces and economy. Obvert did score some victories along the way but CR stymied most of his gambits and won on the slow but steady path. Kudos to both sides for the way this has played out - instructive and entertaining all the way through!

quote:

Deep into 1945, the Chinese army still mostly had 1941 squads. The units were weak and lacked supply. They faced the highly-experienced Japanese units who had conquered China. Those units were strong, supplied and dug in (Erik once noted that many of his units had as many as six forts - and that in 3x terrain!).

quote:

Chungking and Chengtu are worth 5,400 points for Japan (the equivalent of 10,800 for the Allies – which is like conquering all of Kyushu and a goodly part of Honshu). Kunming, Tuyung, Lanchow, Hong Kong and also have big denominators, and I’m sure there were other bases too.

quote:

I'd already engaged in one risky, toughly contested battle in the Home Islands (Sikhalin Island). Erik earned a ton of permanent points that way, fighting efficiently at 1:1 ratios. I sure didn't want him to be able to do that again.

quote:

The victory conditions also entered into the equation. If the Allies don't prevail by 8/31/45, the best they can achieve is a marginal victory. And the conditions to achieve a marginal victory are the same whether 2:1 is achieved on 9/2/45 or 3/30/46. Since victory by 9/1/45 clearly wasn't possible, there was no need to take inadvisable chances thereafter. It meant just as much to achieve 2:1 in early 1946 as it did in late 1945.

There's no question that Erik and I are playing this as a game, as defined by the rules, as opposed to a simulation. The Allies invaded the Home Islands in June 1944. Since then, Erik has triggered exactly one kamikaze attack (near Shanghai in June, I think, 1945). He's played carefully and conservatively to maximize his points and minimize mine. He's playing exactly how I think the game should be played, and he's done a great job. And I'm doing the same - playing the game as a game.

If the game is measured by reality rather than as a game, the Allies had conquered more than they had historically by early August 1945. So by that measure, too, the Allies did well. But I don't think that's a valid measure.

All things considered, I think the game has been a draw, at least since I entered. Both sides fought hard and well, using carefully crafted strategies, and both making only a few mistakes (as best I can tell). The victory conditions will call this an marginal Allied victory, but those conditions were created many years ago and undoubtedly without a lot of hard info as to what the possibilities were. Draw accurately reflects the actual outcome, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.

quote:

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Hitching on Loka's post, but to CR.

He knows both sides; I don't. But, in our game, when I left in December 1944 he sent he his save to look at. It's been months, but I recall him having about 1500 Frank -r in the pools. That was on the high side of models, but he had a LOT of fighters. (obvert took over the game, so there's no OPSEC here.) They're SR3, but I was never going to shoot them down. My pools were worse than yours are.

I think you can strat bomb his aircraft industry. You persist, however, in trying daylight pinpoint raids, often without escort. He has massed fighters. The historical Japan did not. You can't do that in the game.

If you Manpower bomb, at night, and with altitudes that remove AA from the equation, I think you CAN hurt his air effort quite a bit. Fire destroys factories. It isn't choosy, so you can't be as precise as in daylight pinpoint, but you don't need to have great pilots to drop incendiaries either. He will have some night fighters, but he can't always guess right, or guess your altitudes. You will lose more B-29s than historical, but it doesn't have to be 40-50 per raid. And even if you burn up something else it's VPs.

You need fires. I'm not talking 20,000. I mean six figures. It can be done.

Bullwinkle has been advocating for a long time here that the Allied focus is misplaced. If the objective is to achieve an Allied Decisive Victory as determined by the game victory conditions, he is correct.

Any Allied player who is dependent on Soviet activation in order to decisively defeat Japan has adopted an approach which guarantees that at the very best they can only achieve a Marginal Victory and even that is most definitely not guaranteed. A Marginal Allied victory is far below the historical performance and nothing to crow about.

Here the Allies have only 6 months to accomplish an Auto Victory, which is the only way to gain a Decisive Victory. Look at the VPs disclosed in post #3168. As of that date even if Japan gained not a single extra VP in the next 6 months,, the Allies need to harvest more than 80k in VPs. That is more than 13k each month. In his last game against John III just how many months did Canoerebel achieve that quantum in a game where the Japanese position and resistance was no where as well placed as it is in this game to stymie Allied plans.

Any lawyer knows what the phrase "time is of the essence" means. It applies here. Only the big VP sources can lead to a Decisive Allied victory. Those sources are Strategic VPs and acquisition of prime Japanese real estate on Honshu. At this stage consistently achieving 2:1 in air kill VPs (due to 4E providing 2 VPs each a better ratio in down airframes is needed in order to get that VP air ratio) will not suffice to bridge the VP gap. Nor will naval battles achieve such a surplus sufficient to bridge the gap. Land victories even at a 4:1 destroyed device ratio are too small to bridge the VP gap.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.

All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.

My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.

He may not be blaming the game, he just may be commenting on the current Japanese situation.

You are making judgements about his decisions, they were not wrong but they were different than what the decisions that you would have made without having all of the information that he had available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

quote:


Not having all of the information to judge is not weak, it is a fact. It does hold up to scrutiny. Any decision made must take into consideration all of the available assets and the counters to them. If there are not enough assets, you won't get the job done. Just ask the Japanese about Guadalcanal and the Germans on the Eastern Front in WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

mm, dude... you're spending a lot of electrons arguing that your strategy would have been better in somebody else's game. It's starting to sound like you don't have enough to do. Go learn to play the clarinet or something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.

You can't bomb if you don't have the planes. If he were to have all of his 4Es destroyed for little gain and the pilots lost, that threat is then gone allowing the employment of the Japanese defences elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Isn't this horse sufficiently dead yet?