A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

Recently I've been doing a lot of thinking about evil, good and apathy and reading and re-reading Niemoeller and Edmund Burke. Back in 1944 my grandfather, who was in the resistance, was found bringing a bomb into a German-controlled factory. The Gestapo took him first, tortured him to find out who his compatriots were ( he never told me everything they did but suffice it to say the bits he thought were suitable for a teenager were putting cigarettes out on his skin, electrocuting him and pulling out his fingernails with pliers.... He's dead now but I sometimes wonder just what else they did he felt was too rough to tell me about. ). They only had him for an evening so he didn't break - especially since he figured he was dead anyways so he didn't want to go out having given them any information.

Late in the evening a Wehrmacht officer came in and basically told the Gestapo that since the factory was producing material for the Wehrmacht any saboteur trying to sabotage it was, by rights, subject to Wehrmacht interrogation. As my grandfather told it the Gestapo only agreed to give him up on the basis that the Wehrmacht officer would be personally responsible for any future sabotage by my grandfather. The Wehrmacht officer took my grandfather into his staff care and as they were driving away told him that as far as he was concerned my father was obviously guilty BUT he couldn't abide the mistreatment by the Gestapo and so rescued my grandfather from torture and being shot. He also told him that since he was now personally liable if my grandfather did anything he was sending my grandfather to a concentration camp so he couldn't get into any trouble and end up having the Wehrmacht officer shot for his troubles [8D].

My grandfather spent about 6 months in a concentration camp ( not a POW camp, he'd been in one of those in 1940 to 42 ) before he and other suspected guerillas were sent to another camp. They didn't know it at the time but the camp was a place for "undesirables" and one of those places where the SS worked their "undesirable" non-Jewish/gypsy/homosexual prisoners to death. Men died through accidents and starvation but nothing wholesale.... until the very end of the war when in an effort to remove the evidence of what had gone on the SS began bayonetting and pitchforking the prisoners to death - it saved bullets that way. They began early one morning and by noon they had completely killed off one of the barracks. By early afternoon they were on the 3rd of the 5 barracks in the complex, the one my grandfather was in. At this time they got news that the Americans had reached the town nearby and decided to escape. In that day about 50% of the people in the camp had been bayonetted or pitchforked to death. If the Americans had delayed 6 hours everyone would have been dead. Instead they risked their lives, sped on and rescued the survivors ---- and captured most of the guards and delivered them back to the prisoners. There were no weapons, no trials and no survivors amongst the guards.

I don't want to correlate this too much with recent events on the forum except to say that some recent events have had me thinking about good, evil and apathy and, once again, thinking about how rare it is for people to be willing to risk themselves in order to stand against something and how lucky we as a species and world were 70 years ago that there were good men and women on ALL sides who stood up at great risk to themselves and did what they felt was humane and right. I wouldn't be here without a Wehrmacht officer who risked his life to save the life of a guerilla fighter, an enemy, whom he KNEW was trying to bomb a factory he was responsible for OR without American ( and by extension other Allied troops ) who fought through Europe at great cost to life, limb and their mental health and saved my grandfather ( and thousands and millions like him ) from the fate the nazis had planned for them.

Recent events have just made me think how truly exceptional and rare those kinds of people were and are and how lucky we were ( and I was ) that enough of them existed back then to make a difference. My grandfather was but one man who was saved but I'm sure basic human goodness on all sides saved others too even in the midst of some of the worst evil the world has ever seen.

Anyways, I chose the thread title both because of those recent thoughts and how they apply to my story ( the Good guys - aka Allies are doing something unto the Japanese ) and also because I watched some recent documentaries and movies about Nanking and, when I took the Allied side in this Armaggedon scenario, got to thinking of how I would crush Japan quickly and how doing so would require a rapid operational tempo with high losses for a short period of time. Thinking about these losses made me think about how lucky we were that men from the continental USA, Britain and elsewhere would travel thousands of miles to fight and die to defeat a country whose army engaged in such atrocities.

I don't do big emotional stuff often but tonight I've been thinking about it. We really owe these young men and their sacrifices for a greater good. Of course no side in war is perfect and every side commits atrocities and errors etc but, in the Pacific, it is clear that while the Allies weren't absolute angels they were, in comparison to the Japanese Army, truly Good Men Doing Something About Evil.

We are very lucky they existed and did what they did.


And now onto the game....
Armaggedon Mod.
Game commences September 1st 1945.
I'll play as Allies, my opponent as the Japanese.
My opponent has asked for the first week to be a sitzkrieg to allow him to get units into position etc. I've agreed.

HRs: No night bombing by 4-engineds below 15,000 feet. No day bombing by 4-engineds below 20,000 feet.
Usual FatR proviso. If he posts in this thread I will inform my opponent, if he posts in my opponent's AAR or PMs him, he will inform me. That's simply necessary to avoid FatR choosing to ruin another game by breaching FOW.
The night-bombing and FatR rules are the only two HRs. Apart from that if it is sneaky, dastardly and effective then you get bonus points for doing it [:D]


Basic Premise of the Plan:
1. Japan is an island state. If I can destroy its navy and merchant fleet I can remove its freedom of manoeuvre.

2. The ONLY threats to the US Navy are the IJN ( surface warships, submarines and suicide torpedo boats ) and IJNAF and IJAAF air attacks. If I can reduce the IJN to rubble and destroy the IJNAF and IJAAF I can give the Allies freedom of manoeuvre.

3. If Japan cannot manoeuvre ( due to destruction of its navy ) and the Allies can manoeuvre freely ( due to destruction of the IJAAF and IJNAF as viable threats ) then the Allies can pick and choose when and where to land negating Japan's interior lines due to far speedier naval transport.


So, the priorities will be:
1. Destruction of the Japanese merchant fleet in order to prevent wholesale evacuation of Chinese and Korean theatre IJA formations into mainland Japan.
2. Destruction of the IJN.
3. Destruction of the IJAAF and IJNAF anti-shipping strike groups.
4. Destruction of IJNAF and IJAAF fighter groups in order to give B-29s free rein over Japan and in order to limit the number of planes available for escort duty.

Four-engined bombers were not used tactically often and I think they are best used strategically. So, in-game I'll try to use four-engined bombers strategically to bomb factories, strategically important ports and strategically important airbases which I think might be holding IJAAF and IJNAF strike groups. Obviously, for some of the most important atoll attacks use of four-engined bombers will be justified but I don't want to advance behind a carpet of B-29s destroying everything before me. There may have to be violence but it shouldn't be entirely artless.

In terms of the Allied ground forces. Well, obviously, I'm going to make an effort to hold Okinawa just in case my opponent tries something crazy like an invasion. I am also planning some rather unorthodox deep strikes designed to dislocate his entire war plan on the day that we begin the fight for real - September 8th. He will have a plan and it will be designed to disrupt whatever he thinks my plan is. However I have one huge advantage. He has only ever seen how I play when outnumbered and disadvantaged and on the inferior side. I haven't played on the superior side for about 3 years IIRC. This means that I believe he will underestimate how deeply, quickly and forcefully I will try to strike.

It is all going to be very Soviet. Very late 1970s/early 80s and with lots of reference to vertical envelopment, dislocation and exploitation into the operative and, ideally, strategic depth. I'm really looking forward to having the necessary tools to cobble together some proper operations instead of the threadbare, half-baked stuff the Japanese and early Allies can only do.

The sheer amount of air and sea transport available to the Allies is dizzying. Ideally my goal is to end meaningful resistance by the end of November, 11 weeks into the game, with the IJN, Japanese merchant fleet, fighter defence and naval strike capacity of the Japanese forces destroyed. If necessary I'll land in mainland Japan in December 1945 and carry through a land invasion of the mainland then. Not quite home by Christmas but, hopefully, not far off it.

I believe the key to the initial stages will be:
1. Dislocating the Japanese defensive plan.

2. Pinning the Japanese naval forces in place in order to destroy their ocean-going capability by the end of September.

3. Trapping and destroying the Japanese merchant fleet.

4. Engaging the Japanese along each axis, including unexpected axes to engage in the maximum possible attrition. Normally I'd have to phase operations due to limited troops, airpower and sealift. In this scenario I won't have to phase them at all unless I want to. I have enough I can run 4 different Strategic Directions at full operational tempo without compromise. OUCH!!!!

5. Disrupting the Japanese transition to higher-performance fighters in order to maintain the performance differential between Allied and IJAAF and IJNAF fighters. If the Japanese get the J7W or Ki-94 into production my F6F5s will be mincemeat in dogfights.

6. Maintaining an operational tempo of such intensity and such loss rate in an ever-worsening strategic position that my opponent sues for peace.

7. It will be crucial to cut China off from Korea, Korea off from mainland Japan, Hokkaido off from the rest of Japan and the islands off from support from mainland Japan. By piecemealing the Empire up like that I can more readily defeat it.


The more I look at the Allied OOB the more I feel like a kid in a candy shop....
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

I'll post the scenario file here once it is fully scrubbed up and ready... which should be by Wednesday at the latest.

Then I'll go through the various key weapons systems for Japan and how, I believe, they should be countered. Japan certainly doesn't have enough to win but is has enough to really hurt the Allies.... just as it was in real life.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
WLockard
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:58 pm

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by WLockard »

The more I look at the Allied OOB the more I feel like a kid in a candy shop....

This must be a very fun scenario for the Allies, I wonder how fun it will be for the Japanese player. I hope whoever it is does an AAR.
princep01
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:02 pm
Location: Texas

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by princep01 »

Good grief, Nemo. Sometimes I think you think too much. Nonetheless, I look forward to your AAR.

Question: Is this the same thing as the Operation Downfall scenario with the sides switched?
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

WLockard,
Well, the trick for Japan is just to be sneaky. They'll lose but with enough sneakiness they can really hurt the Americans. I've played Japan in this a couple of times and found it fun - but tough.

Princep,
Yes, the updated version of the scenario i am currently AARing as Japan. Same HRs.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by traskott »

In terms of the Allied ground forces. Well, obviously, I'm going to make an effort to hold Okinawa just in case my opponent tries something crazy like an invasion

Yeah, I can't think any crazy japanese player triying this tactic [:D][:D]


Suscribed. Don't disappoint us !! [8D][8D]
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Smeulders »

Interesting thoughts, from the looks of it you'll be going straight for invasions on the Asian mainland (how else to split China from Korea ?). I'm interested how you'll go about destroying the Japanese merchants. As you've shown in your Japanese game the merchant fleet can take quite a hit and that was after you exposed them in a counter-invasion. If he decides to keep them near Japan, under the air umbrella, you'll only have your carriers to go after them. Or maybe you're going straight for a South Korea invasion, forcing him to make longer trips to evacuate Asia and at the same time putting large airbases right near those sea-lanes he'll have to use ?
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by FatR »

I see you've got addicted to posting fake AARs and inviting me to look. Only now you also defile the memory of your ancestor by either inventing sob stories about him, or, which maybe even more reprehensible, using his actual story to support a point in something as irrelevant as a forum squabble. It's interesting to see how low men are willing to sink for something as meaningless as online reputation.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by traskott »


 Invading China ? Darling Nemo, where u have listen that ? [:'(] [:'(] [:'(]

Your readers expect a very exhaustive AAR.
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Merica

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by jeffk3510 »

ORIGINAL: FatR

I see you've got addicted to posting fake AARs and inviting me to look. Only now you also defile the memory of your ancestor by either inventing sob stories about him, or, which maybe even more reprehensible, using his actual story to support a point in something as irrelevant as a forum squabble. It's interesting to see how low men are willing to sink for something as meaningless as online reputation.

Seems to me you're more worried about online reputation than most.....

FatR- I realize how you feel about Nemo. Everyone else realizes how you feel about him. Why do you keep coming back for more? He is an honest man in my book and until I am proven other wise, I will defend him.
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Dez caught it
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

FatR, 3 points in reply.

1. You spectacularly missed the point of my post regarding my grandfather and the past.

2. As I said when you decided I was a cheat. Provide proof.

3. I didn't invite you. As you know I believe you are extremely paranoid ( not paranoid schizophrenia but either a paranoid personality type or a delusional disorder of the paranoid type ). I recently had a think about how to handle you and decided I'd handle you just as I've been trained and advised by our law enforcement officials to handle patients who incorporate doctors into their delusional construct. So, I figured that no matter what I did you would post here. Since you decided to incorporate me into your delusional construct I haven't gone to a single thread you post in an directly addressed you. Instead you have sought me out and launched into verbal abuse on several occasions. I have a proven pattern of avoiding you and avoiding conflict. You have a proven pattern of seeking me out and launching verbal abuse and also making statements which are untrue and which you cannot prove.

Since I figured you would post to this thread irrespective of what I posted I fell back on some advice we got from the police a few years ago. That was that if you are sure someone will invade your privacy or house or whatever it is STILL worth explicitly stating they are not welcome as that disallows the defence, "Oh but I wasn't explicitly asked to stay away so I assumed I was invited." So, if I hadn't prohibited you you would have posted and said that you hadn't been asked not to post. If I did prohibit you I knew you would claim that me asking you not to appear was, somehow, the equivalent of me asking you to appear. In your eyes perhaps. However, in the eyes of the law my asking you explicitly not to post to this thread and you doing so shows more aggressive intent on your part, shows an attempt to avoid contact with you on mine and should this ever proceed down a legal avenue in America ( which is where it would have to go because that's where the servers are ) the fact that you chose to disregard my attempt to warn you off, the fact that I haven't sought you out but you've sought me out AND the fact that you have posted here despite clearly being asked not to would all go towards constituting a pattern of aggressive behaviour.

It may never go legal but another part of the training I've received from the police regarding potentially violent patients is to always assume that it might and to lay the groundwork so that it would be easy to convict them through a clear chain of their breaching clear boundaries. This is the second time you have entered into an AAR of mine to post abuse. Legally that goes quite some way to make a pattern of you breaching my attempts to keep a distance from you.

Personally I'd have no problem pursuing you through the courts in America if Matrixgames don't act IF I thought it would do any good. I doubt it would though as you are beyond their juristiction and, instead, I'd simply be suing Matrixgames for a failure in their duty to moderate the forums properly --- a level to which I don't care to take their failure to appropriately moderate the forums at present. However, laws change and so my calculus regarding the possibility of taking this beyond Matrix Games may change. If it does your recent pattern of behaviour will be helpful to any case in which you are a defendant.... as will my clear attempt to distance myself and ask you not to post - which you breached.

Even if the legal calculus doesn't change I decided that there was value in making it clear you weren't welcome and showing that you were unable and/or unwilling to abide by that wish and, instead, would choose to come here and try to continue flaming and inciting me.

I hope that point 3 clearly explains just why I posted the header I did and what the ramifications are. To be clear though - since there's no prospect of bringing you to heel I don't intend any legal action at the moment. Should it prove more possible to bring you to heel than I currently recognise then that conclusion may change. Thank you, though, for behaving in precisely the predicted manner and helping create a clearly identifiable pattern of pursuit, breach of requests to stay away and abusive behaviour. That should, if the legal framework re: internet forums changes, prove most useful.


We deal with potentially dangerous patients by creating our boundaries, informing them of those boundaries clearly, documenting breaches of those boundaries and their behaviour when those boundaries are breached and then informing the relevant authorities so they can take the appropriate action. Since I've had a think about how to handle your abuse that's the plan I've followed... and put into action.

Again I would ask you to refrain from posting to this AAR and to refrain from approaching me or posting in reply to me anywhere on this forum.... just as I do not post in reply to you unless provoked by you first. You are, of course, free to create more of an evidentiary pattern by breaching this request. Whatever you do - refrain from posting at me or about me OR post at me or about me serves my purposes admirably.

Strategy - the art of creating win/win situations for yourself. It isn't just for warfighting.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

jeffk,

I don't disagree with your post at all but he isn't worth getting involved with. When push comes to shove, he has used his own initiative to commit actions which are clearly recorded and archived which admirably serve my purposes and now, whatever he does, my overall goal is served admirably.

As in the game as in life.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

Traskott, Smeulders,

No, not China.... Although I did consider it. The problem with China is that it would allow large IJA forces to tie down large numbers of Allied ground troops for a long time and, inevitably, end up in a multi-month siege for Shanghai. It would be a meatgrinder.

No, instead I think that without a navy and without aerial transports those troops in China are useless to Japan and can simply be bypassed. He has over 20 divisions in China. With those 20 divisions removed from the war and removed from the equation the Allied ground forces have more ground combat power than the rest of the IJA combined.... which is a very different situation than one would normally face when invading Japan.

I don't think the game will continue to an invasion but I might as well plan for it plus it would be skillful and nice play to render significant portions of the IJA irrelevant through some nice manoeuvre.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Cribtop
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Lone Star Nation

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Cribtop »

In response to your first post, one of my favorite reads is Operation Drumbeat, a history of the German U-boat offensive against the US East Coast shortly after the declaration of war. In the introduction the author addresses U-boat fanboyism and reminds the readers that in his opinion it is possible to appreciate the bravery and skill of the submarine crews even though without question they served a cause that was objectively evil. That phrase "objectively evil" struck me as the world has moved ever towards a "shades of grey" interpretation of the world. I don't necessarily disagree with that view, but think it can be very much overblown. As you point out, the Allies in WWII weren't infallible angels, but we kid ourselves if we can't tell which side in that conflict was "the good guys." Conversely, many Germans braved death and worse in resisting the Nazi regime. Even relatively small acts of defiance such as the one you related were taken at the gravest personal risk and should be evaluated in that context. Interesting stuff that generally confirms my dim view of human nature with the uplifting footnote that greatness is possible if we recognize and work to overcome our base natures. Yeah, I'm more in Hobbes' camp than Rousseau's, but not a total cynic.
Image
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

Cribtop,

Yes, that was what I was getting at with my first post. I think that we have to recognise that there are never angels when nations are at war. On the other hand some nations generally try to do the right thing and some don't. That often gets lost in arguments about moral relativism when people start to fight about just whether or not the Allies ever did anything morally wrong or evil and forget that even if you just simply accept that they did do evil things the number and quality of those evils does pale ( not into insignificance... but definitely pale ) when measured against regimes which thought nothing of mass genocide. I think a good example of this is the firebombing of Dresden etc. I, personally, believe that was an evil act. Was it evil on the same scale of and morally equivalent to the Holocaust? Of course not.

In my grandfather's story... I think that Wehrmacht officer risked his life, literally, to save an enemy. That's a pretty awesome thing to do ( not in the purulent teenage use of the word but actually in the original meaning... I mean who here would, literally, risk their life to save an enemy? ). I often wish my grandfather had remembered his name or unit so it would be possible to trace him or his descendants. Personally, I really hope he survived the war.


And now.... back to war...

So, my plans are to dissect the Japanese empire, prevent the movement of men and material as much as possible and then take advantage of their limited sealift and airlift to position forces all around their perimeter, wearing them down until, eventually, I strike at mainland Japan - weakened as it is by the lack of troops returning from China/Korea etc.

The main weapons systems I need to beware of are:

1. Ki-264: 20 x 250Kg bombs makes it a B-29 equivalent. It can close airfields and the easiest place to kill a B-29 is on the ground.

2. G9M. Carrier-killers with heavy armour, heavy defences, the best pilots in the IJNAAF and enough torpedoes to ripple-fire them at targets. My personal math for these vultures is that a wing of 36 will take 50% casualties and sink a CV even in the face of a full hex of USN CV-based fighters on CAP. My opponent starts with about 4 wings of G9Ms so that's a potential to kill 6 CVs right there without involving any other weapons system.

3. Shinyo. Modelled as DDs with each DD being the equivalent of a Shinyo flotilla of 9 PT boats. So an attack by a DD TF comprising 8 Shinyos actually represents a swarm attack of 72 Shinyo suicide boats. Their weapon's maximum range is 2,000 yards which limits it to night attacks but in my alternate game a Shinyo attack sank the USN BB Iowa. Their natural predators are other PT boats and DDs. Basically, anything small enough to be expendable and quick enough to dodge their extrapolated ramming attacks. Vs BBs, APAs, AKAs etc they are utterly deadly at night. Against everything else they are useless. Unfortunately for the Allies amphibious TFs usually have a large number of BBs, APAs and AKAs.

4. Ohkas. Fast enough to be able to evade light CAP. Able to be fired from caves, even if the runway is closed and capable of sinking a BB with 3 hits, a CA with 2 and any APA or AKA with 2 these suicide planes are pretty lethal. Unfortunately they are horrific planes to fly, very unmanoeuvrable and very prone to being destroyed by FlAK. So, even when they do get through they are far less likely to hit than a fighter-bomber or some other similar kamikaze.

5. Ki-94, J7W1/2, A7M2, N1K5. The new generation of Japanese fighters is formidable. They will beat anything the Allies have short of a P-51H. The J7W2 and Ki-201 will even beat a P-51H. The good news for the Americans is that Japan hasn't got the J7W, Ki94 or Ki-201 into serial production yet. If they do get them into production the Allied air force's losses will skyrocket. If they don't then the Allied air force should be able to keep aerial superiority indefinitely.

Every other weapons system is small game. The G9M, Shinyo, Ohka and new fighters are the game-changers, in that order. So, first order of business, identify G9M production facilities and ruthlessly bomb them. Next, hunt down the Ohkas and, lastly, put up hordes of low-level CAP to kill Ohkas. With those three things done I should be fairly safe.

How to deal with the 130+ G9Ms already in service though? Simple, invite the attack early on and take the necessary losses to destroy the G9M scourge. Even if it costs 8 CVs once they are destroyed and once I can hamstring the effort to build more I can prevent them ever becoming strategically decisive again. Attritional losses over the rest of the war can easily be borne so long as they never become strategically decisive again, able to stop an operation in its tracks.

I'll detail the various targets I'll be going for in a later post.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by traskott »

How many CVs are you ready to lose in order to destroy the G9Ms ???
User avatar
SoliInvictus202
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:24 pm
Location: Austria

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by SoliInvictus202 »

ORIGINAL: traskott

How many CVs are you ready to lose in order to destroy the G9Ms ???

just beware of the number that he HAS... losing 6 or even 10 of them doesn't make such a big difference if it takes out one of the few things lethal to later-on following invasions....

PS: I'll be looking forward to this AAR as well as the future posts of the other one you're writing!

EDIT: I meant losing 6 or 10 CVs, if that wasn't clear....
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by traskott »

If he uses CVEs, his losses skyrocket... if he uses CVs....he would have nulled the currently G9Ms on the map, but.... will Nemo get to stop his enemy to produce G9Ms ??? [:D]
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by Nemo121 »

Well, I estimate they should cost me 8 CVs if I don't take additional precautions. I am hopeful that substituting BBs for CVs and lots of low-level CAP might reduce that to 4. If the butcher's toll is 8 CV though and that gains me strategic freedom then I would pay that price though.

The G9Ms are far more of a threat than the remnants of KB and if I can achieve what I want early on then I can save a lot of CVs in the long run.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: A Few Good Men...FatR Prohibited.

Post by traskott »

Well, im anxious to see your tactics to develop this strategy
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”