Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: So, now things get serious....

 
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: So, now things get serious.... Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/14/2010 2:18:52 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Honestly I don't know what the issue was. It could be just bad luck or something else but I have too few data points to tell right now.

In other news... My picket subs have spotted the IJN TF which unloaded at Eniwetok anchored off Kwajalein while another IJN TF has shown up at Kusaie Island and has begun unloading. I was about 3 days from the area with my transports but have kicked them up to 6 hexes per day instead of 4 and am running my 4 CVs in. I want to hinder the landings at Kusaie and begin working over the enemy shipping at Kwajalein. I also want to draw the G4Ms and G3Ms onto my CV CAP to indirectly reduce the threat to my transports... Basically my route had been to run up the Solomons before turning north-east for the run-in to Kusaie and Ponape. I should still take Ponape irrespective of what the enemy landed there but only a tiny force was committed to Kusaie so Kusaie will have to wait for mopping up forces. So, my targets for the first phase are basically- Ponape, Eniwetok, Roi-Namue, Wotje and Maloelap. Other targets will follow in the second wave... What matters in the first wave is taking his Netty bases from him.

In Manilla my supplies are dropping by a steady 1,000 tons per day even though the Japanese aren't bombarding... I think there's definitely some problem with Manilla in this game... Supplies have just evaporated in that hex all game despite the absence of replacements, fort building etc.


My current estimate of KB's location is somewhere between Takao and Singapore. I think it has finished rebuilding its squadrons/refuelling at Takao and is now on its way to Singers to support further amphibious operations... It should take it about 6 days to reach the Kwajalein area ( 2 days to Saipan, 1 day to refuel there, 2 days from Saipan to Truk and 1 day to refuel there ) and that'll give me enough time to carry out the landings I need to carry out... It'll be tight, damned tight but it'll be doable... I don't really expect to have a CV vs CV fight at this stage as I am getting a 5th USN CV in under 2 weeks time and I plan to hang on until that CV arrives before I tackle KB directly.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 3/14/2010 2:36:57 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 211
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/14/2010 6:49:02 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well my forces ended up 6 hexes from Kusaie Island as planned and the CVs launched over 100 SBD sorties over the course of the day. 2 PBs and 2 DDs were at Kusaie. Both PBs were hit with multiple 1000lb bombs but the DDs did well, dodging almost everything thrown at them. Fortunately my SBDs managed to get a single hit on each and I figure that with IJN damage control a 1000lb bomb hit pretty much guarantees a kill. My decoy transports will now move into Mavis range east of Kwajalein so that Mike can focus eastward while my real invasion forces move rapidly into their initial landing zones - Ponape and Kusaie Islands. The USN CVs will move slowly eastward in order to interdict IJN surface raiders operating out of Kwajalein and, ideally, mini-KB. Mini-KB appears to have been operating out of Kwajalein since the beginning of the war and I've already tangled with mini-KB on several occasions inconclusively.

I've bearded him a little by pointing out that if he reacts to the Marshalls with KB proper then that'll delay his ability to provide CV support for his landings on Sumatra/Java by at least 2 weeks. I think that might make him wait to commit until he's certain that I have a significant force in play.


In other news he ran some BBs into Balikpapan and sank about 8 xAKs and 2 TKs loaded with fuel. Ah well, such is life. I've moved over 100,000 tons of fuel and about 30,000 tons of supply out of Balikpapan but it looks like my ability to remove what remains is beginning to disappear.

Apart from that not much of any significance has happened. The main focus over the next few days will be between Kwajalein and Truk. I think he won't be able to resist trying to catch some transports and so mini-KB will be showing up either from Truk or Kwajalein... My money is on Kwaj so my CVs will take up a blocking position there --- I also happen to know the ships which were at Eniwetok are there so even if mini-KB isn't there I'll still find some ships to sink and every little bit helps.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 212
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/15/2010 8:42:51 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well another day, another aerial ambush....

1. I set up an AVG-based ambush over Balikpapan to catch some Bettys as they tried to raid my shipping loading fuel and supplies there. 12 Bettys came in dumb and happy, 11 were downed and only 1 survived to return home.

2. My CVs swept north of Kusaie island while my Invasion TFs ended up about 90 miles west. Tomorrow they will split in a starfish pattern with some TFs making for Kusaie, others making for Ponape, others for Eniwetok and the majority making for Roi-Namur, Maloelap and surrounding islands. I expect to take losses to my invasion forces, particularly around Ponape but losses are a part of life, c'est la guerre.

3. The Ueberstack from Hell ( UFH ) continues to slowly drible in towards Sian. When the IJA makes a serious effort it really piles on the troops.

4. IJN TFs are seen gathering near the Kuriles. It seems they may try to counter-invade... If they move in I'll send in my BBs and try to rout them. Overall in 2 weeks I'll have an engineer unit, a CD unit and an infantry regiment at each of the two main islands in the Kuriles I now hold. I wasn't set up to reinforce the Kuriles heavily initially as I expected him to counter-attack there in strength immediately, and not give me such a long time to dig in.

5. An Allied SC TF comprising 2 CLs and 6 DDs raided Badeldoab overnight but, unfortunately, no enemy shipping was at the base despite my subs spotting units there yesterday. Ah well, I'll run back to Ambon which is now building up nicely as a base ( the first Bde of an Australian Division is there and I have about 20,000 tons of fuel and 50,000 tons of supplies and the forts are building nicely ), refuel and try again. Eventually I'll hit something worthwhile and every time I do this I'm going to force him to garrison his rear area bases more heavily. Already he is having to garrison the landing zones in the Phillipines with CLs, DDs and a couple of CAs, Singkawang with BBs and CAs... All of this serves to indirectly attrit the spearpoint.


That's about it. Another slowish day....

I've been looking at IJNAF losses as Mike has been making some noises about difficulty replacing KB pilots.... Initially I scoffed at this thinking it was just PsyOps and he'd show up with KB full of 80 Exp pilots. Then I looked at the numbers:
Val losses: 77
Kate losses: 123
Zero losses: 264
Netty losses: Almost 150.

All in all it looks like 600 IJNAF pilots have been killed in the first 2 months of the war. I've been trying to concentrate my attrition on the IJNAF at the expense of the IJAAF but it is only when I look at these numbers that I get to thinking that I may really have impacted them. Still, with such a large pool of trained pilots at war's start 600 pilots should be replaceable shouldn't it? They might be a bit lower in experience but I figure I'll need one more big cull of 300 to 400 pilots over the next month to really make an impact.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 213
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/15/2010 9:00:11 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5557
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Your forces at Ambon are exactly why an early advance by the Japanese into the Southern DEI is highly adviseable. In fact, the 2 SNLF units ticketed for Legaspi on Dec 7th are enough to take out Ambon by themselves. (with a couple cruisers covering it). But either way, you simply cannot let the Allies operate up there past January 1942.

You're doing a great job screwing up the Japanese plans, but your opponent is making some pretty serious mistakes (handling of KB, not closing sea routes, etc.).

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 214
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/15/2010 9:19:58 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Q-Ball,

I think pretty much all of his problems originate from his over-focus on trying to clear Manilla. He routinely has 100 Netties flying there plus KB hits it from time to time... If he diverted those planes to anti-shipping strikes he would achieve more. On the other hand I'm not sure how much more he'd achieve as whenever he brings KB into action I just run away faster than he can hunt and so long as you limit SC TFs to CLs and DDs I find you can pretty much dodge anything Netties throw at you - which I love, it really enlivens the early portions of the game.


In terms of naval search cover though he has Netties operating out of Singkawang - I find my ships near the DEI spotted by them fairly regularly but I'm careful to provide LRCAP to the important TFs and that seems to be putting his Netties off and he also has others operating out of Tarakan. I don't think he has any operating out of Badeldoab but without an Air HQ I am happy that my CLs and DDs can just dodge their bombs.

I also think the new naval search routine is a really subtle piece of work which allows for some truly interesting skillful play. I've operated Force Z within 5 hexes of KB on two separate occasions now and gotten away without being hit by making sure I always end up along an unexpected bearing --- of course one can argue that he should have 360 degree searches but who really wants that wear and tear when you're in the middle of friendly waters ? In any case SC TFs are now many times more survivable in close proximity to land bases. I wouldn't dare to operate CAs too often in these waters though but CLs and DDs are perfect for the task.

I think that land-based air in AE is nowhere near as strong as it was in WiTP. I think, from my reading, that this is realistic and it also hugely increases the survivability and utility of SC TFs. What can really crush SC TFs is KB. If I were Mike now I'd send KB on a port-crushing tour of the DEI and Darwin. To be fair though even that wouldn't achieve its results though IMO as I'd just run away to Perth or Capetown once I realised what KB was up to.

He has somewhere between 50 and 80 Netties trying to close down the DEI ( well, between 40 and 70 as of last turn ;-) ) but I just don't think Netties are going to close down the DEI in the face of CLs and DDs. Those ship types are just too nimble.


I think that when I commit Force Z and the R class BBs we'll see the Netties getting their pound of flesh. Of course disrupting the Sumatran invasion for 3 or 4 days will be well worth the loss of 4 BBs and their attendant cruisers. Until then the nimble CLs and DDs will be able to continue making hit and run raids -the other good thing about using CLs and DDs is that they can get repaired pretty quickly in even moderately sized ports so I've been able to keep 1-2 punching with 2 CL TFs. When the first hits something and gets beaten up it goes into dock and repairs while the second hits somewhere else. By the time the 2nd strike force is home most of the first CL TF is repaired and ready for action. Mate that portion up with the undamaged survivors of the 2nd CL TF and it forms another combat-ready TF. Meanwhile the damaged portions of the 1st and 2nd TF continue repairing and are ready for action when the newly formed TF returns from action in a sorry state.


I think the interplay of algorithms which allows for surface raiding is my favourite portion of AE. It is definitely going to change the construction of ships for EA. I think the IJN might just be optimised to do a lot of raiding in EA.



I'd be interested in others conclusions about this.... Are you all finding the same increase in survivability of non-BB/CA TFs within range of Netties?

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 3/15/2010 9:30:07 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 215
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/15/2010 9:31:44 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5557
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
No question that surface ships are more important in AE, because airpower overall, but particularly LBA, is less-effective. You're right there.

But for that reason, I wouldn't expose R-class BBs, as old as they are, to Netties just to delay an invasion a few days. Those BBs are too important for later, when you need a good BB to cover invasions, because of the reason above.

You have used CL/DD effectively, but a good Japanese player has a counter to that. It's not like Japan lacks CL/DDs, in fact there are piles of them at game start around the DEI, so there should be ample surface ships to cover deep moves.

Fixating on Manila is a big mistake. It is much less important than Singapore.

The importance of surface ships means the Allies have to not just keep track of KB, but you have to keep track of where the BBs are too. Yamato and friends can ruin any party.


< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 3/15/2010 9:35:14 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 216
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/15/2010 9:42:24 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Good point. 2 of his BBs are in dock following torpedo hits, 2 more are with mini-KB around Truk/Marshalls. I figure 2 more must be with KB. That leaves about 4 unaccounted for... I think they are around Singers though as I saw BBs moving in there a few days ago --- one reason why I think he must be about to try for Sumatra or Java. I actually kind of hope he lands in Java. He'll be pissed when he realises that only some 150mm guns I couldn't airlift and perma-restricted units remain


It has been worth it though, Palembang has 1200 AV behind Level 4 forts, I have over 500 AV in armoured units in my Secret Jungle Lair and I have about 2,200 AV at Oosthaven behind Level 4 forts as well as 100 AV each at Djambi and Benkoenen. Wherever he decides to come ashore he is going to find the resistance pretty awesome.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 217
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/16/2010 2:41:21 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4287
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

I just don't think Netties are going to close down the DEI in the face of CLs and DDs. Those ship types are just too nimble.


I assume you're not including Boise or any of her sister "CL"s. Are there any CA's that are small and speedy enough to go on these types of raids?

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 218
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/16/2010 3:25:33 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

I think that when I commit Force Z and the R class BBs we'll see the Netties getting their pound of flesh. Of course disrupting the Sumatran invasion for 3 or 4 days will be well worth the loss of 4 BBs and their attendant cruisers.





Discuss.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 219
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/16/2010 11:27:39 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Ok, if he doesn't land at Palembang ( which is looking less likely now ) then he's going to land at Oosthaven or Benkoenen.

If he lands at either he is going to have to cover his landings with BBs and CAs in SC TFs....

Day 1 Day:
IJN invasion TFs comprising at least 100 AKs and APs would have to transport a minimum of 6 divisions. I don't think the IJN could have more than 4 BBs tasked to cover the invasion TFs ( 2 would have to accompany KB and another 2 are in the docks after taking torpedo hits from Allied forces while mini-KB had 2 BBs accompanying it when I last ran into it ). IJN CAs would be pretty thin on the ground given that 4 have been sunk so far and several of the rest would need to be committed to KB and covering duty for the IJN invasion TFs.

Day 1 Night:
Force Z rocks into town. It takes heavy damage but damages 2 IJN BBs and manages to break through into the IJN invasion TFs sinking some ships and forcing the rest of the IJN TFs out to sea in order to avoid further damage.


Day2 - Day:
The scattering of IJN TFs out of the invasion hex results in the IJN LRCAP being split between multiple hexes and significantly less resistance to my aerial strikes on Day 2. In addition the 2 BBs of force Z ( which have orders to stay in Oosthaven or Benkoenen after the night of combat ) are covered by pretty much every fighter I can find. They should draw IJN strike groups onto themselves and give my fighters a chance to get in amongst the Vals and Kates and cause some serious damage.

Day 2- Night:
IJN TFs re-organise and come into Oosthaven/Benkoenen again.

Day 3- Day:
Unloading continues but in the presence of significantly less IJNAF and IJAAF CAP Allied bombers continue to score hits on the invasion TFs, CD guns get another shot at the invasion TFs and over the past 3 days ( 6 phases ) the IJN has only managed 2 phases of uninterrupted unloading.

On land my mobile reserve force will be filtering into position on Day 2 and on Day 3 it will be changing from Strategic Move to COMBAT MODE. It will finish changing op mode by the end of Day 4 and can attack on Day 5.


Day 3 Night:
The 2 R class BBs which should be on hand by this stage steam into the invasion hex and meet the IJN covering forces again. Since the IJN BBs, CAs and CLs/DDs have used up torpedoes and ammo in the naval combats of Day 1 the R class ships will take heavy damage but should be able to survive to get in amongst the transports yet again.

Day 4- Day.
IJN TFs find themselves out at sea again, LRCAP is scattered again and IJNAF naval attack sorties come into the base hex only to find Allied CAP at full force yet again.


Day 5- Day. IJN TFs will move back into position following the destruction of the R Class BBs and begin unloading over Day 5 night and uninterruptedly from Day 6. Unfortunately for the IJA Day 5 coincides with the combat capability of my armoured forces and the first full-strength counter-attacks aimed at the beachhead. In addition if he has landed at Benkoenen or Oosthaven Day 5 should see the beginning of the arrival of deeper reserve forces from Palembang.


Given that I think the RN will damage many major IJN combatants although suffering worse itself the real win here lies not in the result of the naval battle but in the disruption to loading such that by Day 5 instead of 10 phases of unloading the IJN will manage only 3 or 4 phases of unloading. That buys me time to bring my reserves into action and prevent the IJA gaining a critical foothold.

I also think that Allied airpower will be able to kill enough IJN shipping to make up for any disproportionate losses to the Royal Navy.


Lastly, if I gut his surface forces at Sumatra it will make the USN forces relatively more untouchable.... Every IJN BB and CA sunk or badly damaged at Sumatra is another IJN BB or CA not available to resist the USN when it begins operating in the area. That helps buy the security of the outpost bases north of Darwin and that's pretty crucial. It also forces Mike only to invade where KB has cleared the way --- and I'm planning the battle of Sumatra as a means of breaking KB's pilot strength. I figure I can let him land troops and hold them so long as I manage to really attrit KB such that it can no longer be assured of winning a battle vs my 5 USN CVs and 1 RN CV.


The above is, of course, only very rough but it gives the rough idea of why I'm willing to lose 4 BBs to disrupt the landings, provide an opening for my airforce and set up KB's strike groups for favourable attrition. The key here is that KB has 6 CVs with some 27 Zeroes each. That's about 160 Zeroes. Right now I'm able to mass about 350 fighters. They're not as good as the IJN Zeroes but 350 fighters does give me staying power and the ability to fight through CAP into his bomber streams at which point the inferiority of my fighters won't matter much.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 3/16/2010 11:30:26 PM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 220
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 4:37:47 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
This sounds reasonable but comments

1) What if he takes Java first where will these BBs be ?
2) Why split force Z from the R class ? Come in with 4 BBs and obviously destroyers  , prob 2 of your BBs will be badly damaged the survivors come back the next day. If he only brings 2 BBs and say 6 CAs then it will help a lot.
3) What subs and light forces (destroyers) will you use.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 221
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 2:54:59 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
1. IF he is going for Oosthaven or Benkoenen then he really must take Java first. With his BBs operating around Balikpapan I think this supports the conclusion that he is trying to cut off Java from support and land there. That's fine though, I'm down to about the last 100 AV to evacuate from Batavia. His trap will close only on the perma-restricted units. Hell, it looks like I might even get a good portion of the 4th US Marine Regiment out of Manilla before it falls

I have some AOs out west of Java and if I decide to go with this plan I'll just park an AO somewhere west of Java and top up the fuel tanks before I go charging in.


2. Why split Force Z? Because the key isn't to sink his BBs or CAs. That's very near-sighted. The key is to disrupt his landings over the longest period of time possible in order to allow my land-based reserves to reach the invasion beaches and prevent him gaining a foothold. THAT is the key. Obviously though the situation at the time will dictate what I do. If the situation at the time shows sending in 4 BBs together will work better then that's what I'll do. If he is very slow to land at Benkoenen or Oosthaven and my reserves reach there before he begins landing then it may well make sense that I send in the 4 BBs together. I am, however, assuming he will not move that slowly and obviously.


3. Whatever I have available. It all depends on how much they got shot up over the next week or two and how rapidly they repair. Decoying KB into the Marshalls will give me an additional 2 weeks before he can land in Palembang though so that'll be very useful indeed.



February 4th 1942
Allied shipping begins to starfish. A small TF covered by a CA TF is unloading at Kusaie. This is only a small force of about 150 guys or so ( It is something like the Ratoanga Detachment or something ) since Kusaie is unoccupied. It looks like the 4 IJN ships I hit must have been either an SC TF or an ASW TF. It doesn't look like they unloaded anything.

The Ponape invasion force is now just 1 hex from Ponape under cover of my 4 CVs. It would appear the dodge to the north-east surprised Mike as he had sent a DD TF to a position just north-west of Kusaie island... Presumably he thought I was going to continue north and he was looking for a night combat with some of my invasion TFs.

Unfortunately for him it looks like 6 of his 7 DDs have been sunk over the day of concentrated aerial attack by my CV-based air. One DD dodged all of the bombs but one DD isn't much of a threat--- especially when one considers I brought 10 BBs along for the party. My Devastators were perfectly placed ( 5 hexes from the DDs ) and didn't use any torpedoes. So, about 200 sorties have been used up between my 4 CVs but 10 enemy ships ( 8 DDs and 2 PBs ) have been mauled and all of my torpedoes are still available.

I conducted paradrops on Eniwetok and Roi-Namur. I also took Bikini Atoll by paratroop --- these paras have been waiting at Marcus Island for the past 3 weeks for this opportunity. It appears that the enemy has about 40 AV at Eniwetok and about 70 at Roi-Namur. Both of those bases should fall easily. Excellent news indeed.

I've seen NO Netties anywhere which makes me suspicious that he is trying to co-ordinate them with mini-KB or daddy-KB... Still, by my reckoning it'll be 5 days before KB proper can be in the area. By that time Ponape, Kusaie, Eniwetok, Roi-Namur and Maloelap/Wotje should be in my hands. With the uncrating of the 200+ land-based planes I have available and flying my CV-based air off onto land bases that should give KB a rather unfavourable situation. Sure they can attack but my CVs and warships can run as fast as he can hunt and my APs and AKs should be mostly out of the area by then also.

If he chooses to swap airframe for airframe then that'll give him a great exchange rate but, in the long run, seriously damage his capability to cover his invasion of Sumatra---- which is the whole point of this invasion. The Marshalls are meaningless except as a tool to manipulate Mike into unfavourable actions.


In other news... Mike and I have been chatting a bit about the game and some of his previous comments about being upset about issues in the game have been clarified. It seems he actually got angry about my reply to his question as to whether or not I was reinforcing Singapore. He asked and I obviously replied that, yes, I was and took the opportunity to point out that as my empty ( although I didn't tell him that ) weren't showing troop losses when sunk this showed that I was moving supplies into Singers to have it hold longer. It seems that his previous opponents would, in such a situation, answer him honestly and say something along the lines of "No, I'm evacuating Singapore and reinforcing Palembang". Frankly such a reply would astound me. Its a wargame, telling your opponent your plans is not only stupid but it removes the challenge of the game.

In any case seeing as this upset Mike and since I'm not interested in playing a game which is unenjoyable to him I'm going to be very careful from now on to avoid such questions entirely or give him an obviously joking response. A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.

I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer.... Well, in my view it would I suppose but I guess everyone's different.


In any case tomorrow I'll land at Ponape and try to take Kusaie. The day after that the invasion TFs should be offshore of Eniwetok and Roi-Namur and a day after that they should be off Wotje and Maleolap and the other islands. I'm going to let his Netties hit the forces at Ponape as it is more important to properly cover the invasions of Roi-Namur and other areas at this stage. Once Roi-Namur is taken I can base my AEs and AGs etc there and resupply my CVs and SC TFs and get ready to fight ( or run away from ) whatever he has coming my way.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 222
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 7:10:42 PM   
DW

 

Posts: 98
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


In other news... Mike and I have been chatting a bit about the game and some of his previous comments about being upset about issues in the game have been clarified. It seems he actually got angry about my reply to his question as to whether or not I was reinforcing Singapore. He asked and I obviously replied that, yes, I was and took the opportunity to point out that as my empty ( although I didn't tell him that ) weren't showing troop losses when sunk this showed that I was moving supplies into Singers to have it hold longer. It seems that his previous opponents would, in such a situation, answer him honestly and say something along the lines of "No, I'm evacuating Singapore and reinforcing Palembang". Frankly such a reply would astound me. Its a wargame, telling your opponent your plans is not only stupid but it removes the challenge of the game.

In any case seeing as this upset Mike and since I'm not interested in playing a game which is unenjoyable to him I'm going to be very careful from now on to avoid such questions entirely or give him an obviously joking response. A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.

I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer.... Well, in my view it would I suppose but I guess everyone's different.



Mike made a number of comments in his AAR, as I mentioned to you once before, about the "test" nature of the game.

As he put it- "The intent is to test out AE for Fionn to port over his EA mod."

He also commented that the two of you had been having some "pretty candid discussions of the map and game".

I have the impression that the two things taken together led him to the false assumption that you wouldn't take the opportunity to plant misinformation during the course of what he believed were candid discussions. And, when you did he saw it as a bit of 'bait and switch', so to speak.

Now that he knows that your discussions aren't as candid as he thought they were, I doubt the two of you will have any more problems.

As to your question, all I can say is that it depends on the nature of the game you two have established.

In playing war games with my friends, when were were both climbing up the learning curve with a new game as you two are, we were frequently very open about our strategies because learning the game mechanics was the primary goal and bouncing things back and forth was sometimes helpful to that process.

The nature of the game we had established on such occasions was "learning experience" and victory in such a game wouldn't count toward gloating rights.

It was only in later games, after we had both learned how to play, that we both became more secretive and our interaction took on the cast of cut-throats willing to do anything to win. I suppose one could consider the nature of those games as "death struggles" where anything and everything was fair.

But, we both knew which sort of game we were engaged in.

Perhaps the above has also been Mike's experience, and the candid discussions you two were having informed his belief that the nature of the game you were playing was "learning experience" instead of "death struggle", even though you'd not really given him any real reason to believe that was the case.

You certainly didn't do anything wrong, but I suspect that your willingness to engage in candid discussions with Mike about the game inadvertently skewed his idea as to the nature of the game you two are engaged in.















(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 223
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 7:19:35 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Thanks for the input DW... Aye, I suppose I have a dichotomy in discussions.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss game engine issues openly and, even, if I see an opponent making a mistake to set them right and tell them why, because of the game engine, things aren't working out the way they want ... e.g. In my game vs Damian I gave him hints about his Oscar IIs compared to Pe-2s until he started using Oscar IIs as high-altitude dive-bombing/kami platforms flying above my CAP.


But when it comes to in-game strategies I certainly wouldn't spill the beans as to my plans unless there was an advantage in it for me... I guess Mike may not have realised that distinction. Or, at least, that I operated that distinction.

*Fingers crossed we can avoid this in future* Since he said it I've been pretty careful in not saying anything which could be misinterpreted so, hopefully, that'll lessen his annoyance.

(in reply to DW)
Post #: 224
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 7:21:05 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3677
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
He's upset about getting duff information from his opponent ? . While I'm not above lying a bit in my chats my opponent knows not to ask such things. As you said its a wargame not an exercise in truth management .

You could just go with the usual "Cannot confirm or deny XYZ" , that way he's not going to be upset by obvious lies but then again why should he expect honesty on future events? OK if a months gone past I might be prepared to discuss what and why i did a certain action (assuming i actually remember it in any detail).

Viva la differance

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 225
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 7:43:41 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4588
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Hehe second that. I take your comments always with a grain of salt as you do with mine for sure.
Thats almost never an outright lie as far as I´m concerned, but a bit of media is part of the game IMO.

Always compare what you hear with hard data. Here we go Tokyo Rose.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 226
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 8:36:07 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4287
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.

I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer....


I consider (and I think I'm far from alone) that it is fair game to decline to answer, or give an accurate but not useful answer. Giving out falsehoods, however, is crossing the line. If asked whether or not you are reinforcing Singapore, you can reply that "security is very tight concerning operations in Southern Malaysia", or "no official word has been given, but troops have been instructed to leave their cold-weather gear at home".

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 227
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 9:04:23 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Really Harlock, see that's just weird to me... I would think that in a conflict giving out falsehoods is part and parcel of maskirovka.

It is interesting though to see the different viewpoints out there. It really would never have occurred to me to think that people would be upset by an opponent telling them an in-game untruth. I always just viewed that as part of the game.

Well, I guess this is another thing to add to pre-game discussions so as to make sure everyone's on the same page.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 228
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 9:25:26 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5557
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I agree with Capt. Harlock, though it's a fine line. I have made deliberately misleading comments like "Hmmm.....looks like you're giving up on Fiji", when I think the opposite to be true. But I haven't stated something like "I am evacuating Fiji", when in fact I am reinforcing. Semantics, I guess, the first is misleading opponent what I am THINKING (fair game), and the second flat out what I am DOING (probably over the line).

At any rate, I think you should be honest on gameplay. For example, Cuttlefish and I are just trying to figure out what is FOW and what isn't....like on ASW attacks, he'll get "Ki-21 reports HIT on SS Shad", and ask if it's true. I'll be honest, because we both want to know, for example, if ASW works or not. We need to know what info is generally correct, and what is bunk.

I would also answer questions on aircraft settings, or orders, etc, to know what the heck happened and why.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 229
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 9:50:06 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Aye but there's a huge difference between " I had my fighters set at 40% CAP, I find that works well" --- which helps you and your opponent figure out jsut what the hell is happening in-game but it is another situation entirely to be expected to give up a strategic plan...


If you don't have to be honest about what you're thinking then just why would you have to be honest about what you are doing strategically?

Being open about operational issues to help understand the black box that is combat resolution etc is all well and good but, gees, in a chess match you'd never be expected to tell your opponent your plan. If he misreads it then that's his tough and all part of the game.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 230
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 10:01:24 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3615
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Gameplay yes, strategy no. Lying, bsing and propaganda are half the fun/strategy of it imho. As said above, another thing to add to pre-game discussions.

Edited for blatant grammar violation.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 231
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 10:46:55 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2907
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
I couldn't have said it any better Q-Ball. My opponents and I also ask about game mechanics and how they may have affected the outcome of an engagement to better understand gameplay. Misleading comments are avoided, that's what recon is for. I asked after a carrier raid once, where they might be heading after, I was told Shangri La and that worked for me.

I think there has to be some discourse between opponents for sure, including some half truths at times. However, the intention in this matchup seems not to be all about winning, things are being tested and new strategies tried, so I think to purposely try and mislead your opponent in private discussions just doesn't sit well. That being said, I don't know the context of these discussions, so I won't judge, but I wouldn't intentionally mislead nor blindly accept what was told to me either .

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 232
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 10:55:37 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well just to clarify where the misleading was.

Mike asked if I was evacuating or reinforcing Singers.... I replied that I was reinforcing it.


Simple. Any time we've talked about the effects of airstrikes, artillery, combat vessels or anything operational like that things have been fully open but, hell, if someones asks me about the lynchpin of my strategy --- reinforcing Singers vs evacuating to Northern Sumatra I jost don't see how I can be expected to torpedo my entire war plan for 1942 by being expected to give him a straight answer.

I'm fully agreeable to agreeing to disagree though. But I think it is fair to say that when I go looking for an EA game if people think that opponents should divulge their strategic plans to eachother in emails when asked then they'll probably not enjoy a game with me.

It is interesting to see the different opinions but, really, this just mystifies me. I've played chess competitively etc and the idea of telling one's opponent one's plans during a tournament is just out of this world.


Honest question: Could this be an American thing? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I do wonder if, perhaps, the social conventions around match play might be different in the US vs Ireland/UK? I'm asking because I've found that sometimes my American friends and I can find that our most basic assumptions are where the difference lies... and that we'd never considered such differences in basic assumptions might exist.

So, is the whole - don't engage in mind games as part of the game belief the standard belief in the US?

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 233
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 11:35:41 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6557
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
Interesting discussion. When I studied at the Swedish equivalent of the ACSC, I wrote my thesis on operational deception. I had (of course) to read quite a few books on the subject. One side note I made in the thesis that came from the books, was that there seems to exist some cultural bias towards using (or not using) deception.

Quote; ”In the meantime [our editor] had discovered, just as we had at the Pentagon, that cheating and deception were [considered] un-American”.
(Bell, Bowyer och Whaley, Barton, 1982, Cheating and Deception, introduction page 28).

This was also commented upon in a lecture held by a prof Milan Vego (professor of operations at the US Naval War College) who commented upon deception like this; "We [the USA] are not very good at deception. We are too powerful for that".

_____________________________

“Pay attention to where you are going because without meaning you might get nowhere.”

-- Winnie the Pooh

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 234
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 11:49:47 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Grollub, interesting as always....

To add to this... I wouldn't be massively adherent to western doctrine and, instead, would hew much more closely to the ideal espoused by Tukhachevsky ( although not practiced by the Red Army until at least early 1944 due to operational and personnel failures ). In any case in any maskirovka operation the rule of thumb is that at least 1/3rd of the total force committed to the operation ( Army, Front, Strategic Direction etc ) be committed to the deception operation which helps promote the success of the main thrust through misdirection of the enemy.

I know others mightn't agree but in my mind the Kuriles, China Burma and the Marshalls operations are all operations supporting the primary Strategic Direction ( the DEI ). China can't support a true deception operation but the Kuriles, Marshalls and the attacks in Burma are all genuine deception/misdirection operations albeit that there's an element of desynchronisation thrown in.

Obviously how you interpret these things depends on your mindset. One person's deception operation is another's attrition operation... I think the key though is the utter centrality of deception operations to operational ( and higher level ) art in many military doctrines/cultures. The more I've read this thread etc the more I've come to wonder if what is viewed as clever deception in some countries/cultures is viewed as "being a sneaky rat" ( unfavourably ) in some other cultures on the forum. Again, this isn't to say anyone's right or wrong, I'm just genuinely intellectually curious.

American sports ( baseball, basketball and American football ) all have trick plays, misdirection and deception as components of their play/ transfer of instructions from coaches to players but I know that there are very strict limits as to what is considered fair or not... Snooping the opponent's play book in american football is considered bad form - I remember reading that a coach got into serious trouble for that one one of the professional teams last year. I think in rugby if you broke the opposing team's code then a coach would be applauded for using that to crush them. OTOH rugby is quite a bit more gladiatorial and unsparing.

(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 235
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/17/2010 11:54:43 PM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

<snip>

Honest question: Could this be an American thing? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I do wonder if, perhaps, the social conventions around match play might be different in the US vs Ireland/UK? I'm asking because I've found that sometimes my American friends and I can find that our most basic assumptions are where the difference lies... and that we'd never considered such differences in basic assumptions might exist.

So, is the whole - don't engage in mind games as part of the game belief the standard belief in the US?


Quite possibly; the social norm here is when asked a question that one shouldn't reasonably answer, one evades or ignores the question rather than lying. If you're on good terms with the interrogator, you might even challenge them on the reasonableness of the question.

I'd expect an american conversion on that to run something like?

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Wouldn't you like to know?

or

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Dude, you know I'm not going to answer that?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 236
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/18/2010 12:01:37 AM   
Grollub


Posts: 6557
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Grollub, interesting as always....

To add to this... I wouldn't be massively adherent to western doctrine and, instead, would hew much more closely to the ideal espoused by Tukhachevsky ( although not practiced by the Red Army until at least early 1944 due to operational and personnel failures ). In any case in any maskirovka operation the rule of thumb is that at least 1/3rd of the total force committed to the operation ( Army, Front, Strategic Direction etc ) be committed to the deception operation which helps promote the success of the main thrust through misdirection of the enemy.

I know others mightn't agree but in my mind the Kuriles, China Burma and the Marshalls operations are all operations supporting the primary Strategic Direction ( the DEI ). China can't support a true deception operation but the Kuriles, Marshalls and the attacks in Burma are all genuine deception/misdirection operations albeit that there's an element of desynchronisation thrown in.

Obviously how you interpret these things depends on your mindset. One person's deception operation is another's attrition operation... I think the key though is the utter centrality of deception operations to operational ( and higher level ) art in many military doctrines/cultures. The more I've read this thread etc the more I've come to wonder if what is viewed as clever deception in some countries/cultures is viewed as "being a sneaky rat" ( unfavourably ) in some other cultures on the forum. Again, this isn't to say anyone's right or wrong, I'm just genuinely intellectually curious.

American sports ( baseball, basketball and American football ) all have trick plays, misdirection and deception as components of their play/ transfer of instructions from coaches to players but I know that there are very strict limits as to what is considered fair or not... Snooping the opponent's play book in american football is considered bad form - I remember reading that a coach got into serious trouble for that one one of the professional teams last year. I think in rugby if you broke the opposing team's code then a coach would be applauded for using that to crush them. OTOH rugby is quite a bit more gladiatorial and unsparing.

Very well put, Nemo.

To be preemptive - my own view on what's ok or not ok is basically that anything that concerns understanding of the game engine, I answer truthfully. Anything else is fair deception game. I might be truthful. Or not.

_____________________________

“Pay attention to where you are going because without meaning you might get nowhere.”

-- Winnie the Pooh

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 237
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/18/2010 12:02:48 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
<snip>

Obviously how you interpret these things depends on your mindset. One person's deception operation is another's attrition operation... I think the key though is the utter centrality of deception operations to operational ( and higher level ) art in many military doctrines/cultures. The more I've read this thread etc the more I've come to wonder if what is viewed as clever deception in some countries/cultures is viewed as "being a sneaky rat" ( unfavourably ) in some other cultures on the forum. Again, this isn't to say anyone's right or wrong, I'm just genuinely intellectually curious.
<snip>


I think there's another facet here which is worth examining and its the usual American/western critique of operational *complexity*. Its a common american complaint about Midway for example, to say that the Japanese plan was too complicated with too many moving parts and hence bound to come unsprung. Had the Japanese just massed their entire fleet and headed to midway, they'd had bulled their way through, surprise appearance of American carriers or not.

I think American operational preference is for simplicity of execution, executed with extreme violence and force at the decisive point. Complexity might go wrong, complexity adds uncertainty. Simple plans are lower risk, expecially in an operational environment where you expect to have a force advantage over any conceivable adversary.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 238
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/18/2010 4:21:16 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

1. IF he is going for Oosthaven or Benkoenen then he really must take Java first. With his BBs operating around Balikpapan I think this supports the conclusion that he is trying to cut off Java from support and land there. That's fine though, I'm down to about the last 100 AV to evacuate from Batavia. His trap will close only on the perma-restricted units. Hell, it looks like I might even get a good portion of the 4th US Marine Regiment out of Manilla before it falls

I have some AOs out west of Java and if I decide to go with this plan I'll just park an AO somewhere west of Java and top up the fuel tanks before I go charging in.


re Java that is logical , your PBYs must be pretty busy ...

quote:


2. Why split Force Z? Because the key isn't to sink his BBs or CAs. That's very near-sighted. The key is to disrupt his landings over the longest period of time possible in order to allow my land-based reserves to reach the invasion beaches and prevent him gaining a foothold. THAT is the key. Obviously though the situation at the time will dictate what I do. If the situation at the time shows sending in 4 BBs together will work better then that's what I'll do. If he is very slow to land at Benkoenen or Oosthaven and my reserves reach there before he begins landing then it may well make sense that I send in the 4 BBs together. I am, however, assuming he will not move that slowly and obviously.


Sending 4 isnt to damage his BBs ,its just 4 could sink 1-2 of his BBs and than get amongst his transports which could even force him to abandond the landings esp if he only sends 2 BBs 2 couldnt do this. I just think if you send 4 ,2 will prob have little damage. However if he manages 6 BBs and 6+ CAs then sending 4 will be bad...but this seems unlikely unless they come out of the shop early or he takes the escorts from KB.
re slow and obvious , it has been so far.....:-)




_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 239
RE: So, now things get serious.... - 3/18/2010 4:54:47 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Yes normally an evasive answer would be used but in this case that gives the games away , why evade an answer it must be important ...It would invite some certain recon whereas if the question was never asked this may not have come..

Best solution is such questions are not asked and it is in the pre-game.


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

<snip>

Honest question: Could this be an American thing? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything but I do wonder if, perhaps, the social conventions around match play might be different in the US vs Ireland/UK? I'm asking because I've found that sometimes my American friends and I can find that our most basic assumptions are where the difference lies... and that we'd never considered such differences in basic assumptions might exist.

So, is the whole - don't engage in mind games as part of the game belief the standard belief in the US?


Quite possibly; the social norm here is when asked a question that one shouldn't reasonably answer, one evades or ignores the question rather than lying. If you're on good terms with the interrogator, you might even challenge them on the reasonableness of the question.

I'd expect an american conversion on that to run something like?

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Wouldn't you like to know?

or

-- Are you evacuating singers?
-- Dude, you know I'm not going to answer that?



_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: So, now things get serious.... Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.126