Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nemesis...

 
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 >> Nemesis... Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nemesis... - 5/9/2011 12:16:53 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
FatR, if you are reading this you are specifically asked to refrain from cheating and destroying this AAR by emailing my opponent all my plans as you have TWICE done in the past.

In order to protect against this my opponent is agreeable to not being named AND this AAR will be delayed by up to one month of game time. Unfortunately the presence of FatR on the forum necessitates this caution.


So anyways, I and another player have decided to give the Armaggedon ( September 1945 to December 31st 1946 ) timeframe another go. I modified the scenario slightly on the basis of discussion with my opponent and lessons learned from the first game vs PH. NOTE: This is very much a hypothetical scenario. All efforts have been made to model each individual weapons system accurately but some are hypothetical and where necessary to avoid an utter rout changes have been made to the setup as below:

1. When the game started IJN MBT production was still broken so in view of IJN Shinyo and Maru-re production ( IJN and IJA suicide attack speedboats ) the Shinyos were changed from MBTs to DDs where each DD would represent a Shinyo flotilla of 9 boats. Shinyos are modelled as having a single "Shinyo Charge" each which represents the torpedo/contact-detonated explosives/2 depth charges which were the armament of the boats of this class. To aid redeployment of the Shinyos their speed and range has been increased to 9 hexes per 12 hours and 1 day's steaming. This gives them a mild mid-ocean intercept ability - theoretically they could intercept ships 300 miles out to shore ( in the war they operated out to 150 miles at times in documented historical missions ). It is a mild increase in capability but essential to allowing these boats to move from Tokyo ( where they arrive ) to Formosa.
Japan begins the game with about 10 flotillas and builds another 5 or 6 flotillas every week till the end of December at which point production increases to 10+ flotillas per week. This is actually less than the historical build rate ( Japan had several thousand Shinyos on hand at war's end in August 1945 ) but I reduced the build rate below historical levels as I am assuming these boats take longer to build as they have longer range and suchlike. Shinyo charges are modelled like torpedoes with a high hit rate but a low range of 2,000 feet.

2. Ki-94 and J7W1 entry dates were moved up by 2 months. This was done because PH was able to leap forward far too much early on and this meant that what was planned as a 12 to 15 month game would be over by the end of the year. These changes give Japan more defensive ability but no greater offensive capability.

3. Japan gets a core of Ki-264As and G9Ms ( about 120 of each ) and a build rate of 40 per month. This is done to give Japan the ability to keep B29s and others bombers ( and CVs) away from immediately dashing into close range of the Japanese coastline without fear. Again, the goal is to reduce the rate of advance from invading islands 40 miles from the mainland within a week or two of game's start and forcing the Allies to actually work for their gains. The Allies get FAR more large four-engined bombers etc and the low replacement rate means that these bombers are really a 1 to 2 shot weapon, which the Japanese player must take care not to fritter away.

4. Allied airplane replacement rates are increased again. In this scenario they are roughly 75 to 80% greater than in AndyMac's scenario of the same timeframe. This is done to counter expected IJNAF and IJAAF production of more advanced airframes.

5. Changes were made to bomber turret modelling to account for the differences in accuracy between stabilised turrets, non-stabilised turrets and hand-held guns. The B-29 with so many remote-controlled turrets is still a demon to intercept but less advanced bombers become less lethal to fighters. B-17s aren't really useful as fighter sweeps any more. In the end this hurts Japan more as more of their bombers are less advanced and thus have non-stabilised turrets. Overall though fighter intercepts now proceed a bit more reasonably.

6. Allies get additional 4 parachute divisions, armour and infantry divisions and a dozen large CVs with an additional 1000 planes.

7. Japan gets one additional squadron with 72 Ki-94 IIs to help players test them in action and decide if they want to build them. Japan also gets 1 "Island Defence Brigade" comprising some 200 IJA infantry squads, 40 engineers, 100 AV support, some CD guns and about 30 AAA guns to defend each of the islands around Japan. These Brigades can still be taken out by the Allies pretty easily but at least it prevents the Allies just landing paras on undefended islands 46 miles off the coast of Japan - a grievous error in the first iteration of the scenario.

Again, the point is to make the Allies work for the win, not to deny them the win and to help the game progress into 1946 as a going concern. The changes are also designed to make a brute force approach more costly as the whole concept behind EA versions is not to reward brute force approaches but to reward more subtle approaches.

HRs: We started off with none but after the first 3 or 4 days agreed to the following rules with bombing:
1. Daylight bombing by 4-engined bombers would be limited to altitudes above 20,000 feet.
2. Night-time bombing by 4-engined bombers would be limited to altitudes above 10,000 feet.

These rule changes were due to Allied strategic bombing at low altitude being too devastating and IJAAF night-time bombing at low altitude also being too devastating in the early portion ( first week of the game ).

We agreed a 1 week operational pause to allow both of us to organise our forces --- a task larger than the Japanese turn 1 in the Grand Campaign. Seriously, it took us over a week of work each to sort out our forces for the first turn....

After considering the lessons of the game with PH I decided that the Allied base in Okinawa allowed them to project power right into the coast of Japan from Day 1 and this led to the game proceeding at far too rapid a pace for a 15 month game. So, reducing Okinawa was made a priority. Accordingly orders went out to All IJN shipping ( 1 BB, 2 CA and about 30 DD ) to begin proceedings in order to provide escort for a counter-invasion of Okinawa.

The plan was:
1. To take one of the two bases on Okinawa before the Americans knew what was happening. The cost was expected to be huge as proper preparation would be impossible. I assigned 400 ships to the mission ( including SCs, Es, xAKLs of 450 tons and 828 tons etc... basically everything that could sail ) and am conffidently expecting to lose 150 to 200 of them ( the small xAK and xAKL ( many of which are under 1,000 tons ) are so flimsy that even the smallest of hits will destroy them so losses will be high ). If I get ashore though it'll be worth it.

2. Use the base I take to help neutralise the airfield at the second base on Okinawa.

3. Use the troops trapped at the second base ( and the lack of an airfield for reinforcements/resupply/evacuation ) to lure the USN in to littoral ranges and use my MTBs and kamikazes to swamp the USN defences and inflict attritional losses. I don't have the power to destroy the USN but the more time and effort they expend in saving Okinawa the less time and ships they'll have left to advance beyond it.


Primary issues for Japan:
1. The navy is almost destroyed - 1 BB, 2 CA, 1 CL and 30 DDs. It is enough to make a couple of useful SC TFs but the Americans have 20 to 30 times the forces in each category so this navy cannot even be relied upon to defend a beachhead for a day. As such it is best used for raiding to tie the Allied navies down providing close escort for their amphibious TFs.

2. The Ki-264s and G9M can be devastating but running into one CV TF’s CAP or one large airbase’s CAP would be enough to shred those planes. I am treating them as a one shot weapon with a reload time of up to 3 months. Thus I expect to use them at night only unless the situation gets absolutely critical.

3. My IJAAF bombers can be shot down in droves by the USAAF. Hence they’ll be used mostly at night also.

4. My pilot quality is abysmal with many groups having 40 Exp and 40 A2A skill pilots. This means I won’t be able to mount many offensive missions. Even when going on the offensive during the first proper week of play I’ll have to maintain my fighters and bombers on the defensive tactically speaking ( bombers can bomb at night but in their case that bombing represents Darwinian on the job training ).

5. Lots and lots of troops scattered through Western China, Thailand and Vietnam. Those troops are in places which no longer have a strategic impact. As such I’m withdrawing them and will use them to bolster the defences of mainland Japan, the Kuriles, Korea and the islands around Japan. Unfortunately because of FatR I won’t be able to say precisely where I think the next blow will fall. Once a cheat, always a cheat and all that.

6. Under 1108d onwards kamikaze now really don’t work anymore. So, while we’re playing under the most recent betas I won’t be launching any airborne kamikaze attacks unless I can mass massive fighter support ( of sacrificial 30 Exp pilots ).


< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/3/2011 12:09:07 AM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Post #: 1
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 12:38:43 AM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2078
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Good luck Nemo, I'll be following as always.

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 2
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 12:41:00 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Week 1:

We agreed a logistics and setup period for the first week of September given the huge number of forces we both had to organise....

Japan, during this period commenced 3 main operations which I'm comfortable sharing with the forum. There were others but, obviously, if FatR finds out about them I might as well email them to my opponent myself....

1. All troops in Western China, Vietnam etc are ordered to march overland to the Eastern coast of China ready for movement by sea into Korea/the Home Islands.

2. Hainan Island is being evacuated by a single xAP and 4 barge flotillas. It should be fully evacuated by month's end, which will give me about 40,000 reserve troops capable of doing something instead of just being cooped up in a huge POW camp.

3. Every base I have begins building fortifications. If forts are already at Level 4 then they begin building airfields.

4. Japanese airgroups are divided into fighter, bomber, training and kamikaze groups. The bomber and training groups go to two secret bases out of the way of the war where they can train in peace. Fighter groups are scattered through Western and southern Japan. China, Korea and most of Formosa are abandoned. Japan no longer has an air force capable of defending the Home Islands, nevermind far-flung bases.

5. Multiple IJA divisions make for Shimonoseki, Fukuoka and Sasebo where they meet up with, literally, every transport I have. The IJN SC TFs gather at Nagasaki while MBT TFs gather in south-eastern Japan ready to sprint towards Amami Oshima and threaten Allied shipping around Okinawa. We have a HR that while the Allies can move ships and troops from CONUSA and Hawaii into the theatre no Japanese ship ( except subs ) can move more than 3 hexes from mainland Japan or China during this period of time. This prevents major Japanese movements but still allows me to gather at Nagasaki. It allows the Allies to begin shipping major forces into the theatre from Day 1.

6. In total, by the end of the week some 300 transports are loaded with 150,000 tons of supplies and over 5,000 AV of men and tanks. My troops are NOT efficiently loaded as I didn't have the right shipping for that. In many cases a 6,000 ton xAK has 6,000 tons of troops and material on-board. It'll take an age for them to unload but I have no choice. I either commit fully or not at all to this. This raises the risk of huge IJA losses if the USN gets in amongst the fleet but I'm betting that unpreparedness and a submarine screen will delay the USN by 4 or 5 days, by which time I should have achieved what I need to achieve.

7. Kamikazes: My planning for kamikazes was made before we realised the "bug" ( the game is working as designed, it is just that the design has had unanticipated consequences which don't fit with the historical record ) which set all kamikaze altitudes to 9,000 feet no matter what altitude you set them at. This meant that you couldn't split CAP to get leakers or anythin anymore. Instead all kamis came in at the perfect height for radar and CAP interception and the hit rate went down from near-historical levels of 12 to 14% to less than 1% ( in my testing vs CV TFs with less than 100 kamis flying per raid... If you send in 400 kamis in a single raid you get more leakers, but even then not many and well below the historical rate of hits ).

In any case my plan was/is to continue building Ki-43s as high-altitude kamikazes whilst combining them with Ohkas and a small number of IJAAF level bombers. The Ohkas and level bombers fly in at 100 feet while the Ki-43s fly up where only the Corsairs can get them. The splitting of CAP almost always allows for leakers.

8. Since the enemy has about 1500 planes on Okinawa and there's no chance that Japan can defeat 100 planes I am flying large amounts of recon over Okinawa and the Phillipines. I'm anticipating a D/L of 9/10 on 8th September ( the first day of battle ) and have tasked the entire airforce ( All 120 Ki-264s and every Ki-67, Ki-49, Ki-21, Ki-48 and even some Ki-51s ) to fly a low-level (6,000 feet ) airfield attack on Naha on the first night of combat. My hope is to be able to shut down that airfield and destroy many P-51Hs and P-47s on the ground. That will then leave me with only Naga airfield in Okinawa to suppress over the rest of the battle ( I am assuming I am able to take Naha and thus can repair that airfield and base my own fighters there to help provide CAP for my ships ).

9. I am forming hunter-killer TFs of Escorts with ASW of 9 or greater. I plan to run them between Amami Oshima and Nagasaki continuously in order to clear those waters of subs. In the longer run I plan to ship troops and supplies from the mainland via Nagasaki to Amami Oshima ( using coastal waters as much as possible ) using ships and then use barges to transfer them from Amami Oshima to Naha. Amami Oshima and Naha will be covered by pretty much every PT boat and MBT and suicide boat I can muster. I'm quite happy to meet the USN with my most dispensable units and, in fact, allowing the survival of the US troops at Naha is designed to draw the USN fleet in close to Naga where my PT boats etc can get at them. Every BB and CA I sink now is one less BB or CA for the invasion of Japan proper.


In the meantime it appears that my opponent is really preparing his bomber force for a major offensive. I am expecting huge numbers of sorties from his B29s and B32s for the first few days with attempts to destroy my HI as early as possible. We have no HR for that yet as regards altitude. I want the altitude to be 20,000 feet but so far we haven't agreed that. One sub-reason for the raid on Naha is to make the point that not HRing strategic bomber altitude works both ways and if he uses it to devastate my forces unrealistically then he'll find his airbases and ports devastated unrealistically also.

So, that's pretty much where we are at the end of Week 1. Tomorrow the report from the first day of way...

Well, the report from the first day of war which occured many weeks ago now ;-). I am writing as we go but posting in a delayed manner for the reason previously mentioned.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/9/2011 12:52:59 AM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 3
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 12:53:30 AM   
Braedonnal

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
It is good to see you start another AAR, Nemo.  It is a pity you are forced to take such measures but given the situation I can hardly blame you.  Good luck and BANZAI!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 4
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 1:03:52 AM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
Welcome back!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 2:15:05 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1940
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
I look forward to following this AAR. Is the mod available for others to play?

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 6
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 3:47:42 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3708
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Banzai! Watching and waiting for goodness...

Disturbing about kamis. Hopefully that will be fixed soon, assuming it is considered a problem by the Devs.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 5/9/2011 3:50:05 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 7
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:59:09 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
First of all, screw your lies, Nemo. If you think that bringing in the open **** that I kept closed because Panzejaeger Hortlund insisted on it remaining closed, will do anything, but draw me to the stink, you are stupider than I thought.

You are the cheater of the worst order, who systematically peeked into at least Panzerjaeger Hortlund's AAR, unrepentantly lied about it, and most likely used the same practices on your previous opponents.

Point in case - here Panzerjaeger Hortlund changes his strategic plans for the Armagedon game (which you have already read, of course):




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/9/2011 9:11:06 AM >

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 8
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 9:05:24 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
And here, within little more than two hours after that, you not only change your own defensive plan to exactly where PH was moving, but raise a smokescreen about information leaks in PH's AAR, which, as was said even then by multiple people did not exist, and which nonexistence can be checked right now on PH's AAR; so that change in your plans immediately after change in PH's plans won't be obvious.




Of course, immediately after seeing that you saw PH's movement exactly again, and rechecking date/time of your sudden change in plans, I PMed Panzerjaeger about it. He decided to continue the game, and asked me not to raise the issue openly, but as the game is admitted to no longer be continuing, I'm feeling free to defend myself.

That said, I wonder if your "new opponent" even exist, Nemo. After seeing how elaborately you are willing to lie, even faking respect for your opponent, after showing none when it was not needed, the whole game might well be you against yourself.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/9/2011 9:07:32 AM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 9
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 2:29:32 PM   
Yakface

 

Posts: 715
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
Oh dear - this is going to be ugly.  Given the futility of these things, can I suggest it doesn't go any further.  Both of you believe different versios to be true.  There's no middle ground.  Best just left alone.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 10
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 2:38:36 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
FatR, I don't see a smoking gun in what you posted.

The problem is that you are levying the most serious charges possible - that a long-time member of this community is dishonest and lacks character and integrity. You've done this on what seems to be questionable evidence. You are making judgment calls on what could be nothing more than honest coincidence (assuming there's something there, which at first reading I didn't see). That's dangerous ground to be walking, because if you're wrong, you've engaged in character assassination of a completely innocent person. That person then suffers irreparable harm. So you don't level those kinds of charges unless you have proof positive.

Moreover, if you do find a crime of such magnitude, you do not counter it by engaging in the same conduct (revealing information from an AAR). You go public with the accusation as it's a serious matter that the entire community would be concerned with. If the "victim" asks you not to do so, you honor that request and let the victim deal with it when and how he wishes to do so. But acting as a vigilante who personally makes accusations, arrives at conclusions, and metes out justice in sneaky ways isn't right.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 11
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 4:29:25 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Well, Canoerebel, that's why I went to Panzerjaeger Hortlund with my suspicions, instead of stating them openly, and that's why I was willing to keep my mouth shut, and, in fact, avoid any form of forum contact with Nemo121 altogether, until he decided to publicly accuse me of maliciously sabotaging his game, and to do it in a way that's impossible for me to miss even if I tried. At this point I pretty much have no choice but to make my motives clear.

As about validity of accusations, you perhaps should ask yourself, if you would have been willing to believe in your opponent's ability to perfectly guess your hand twice in a row - and as soon as your hand changes - if something valuable was at stake. Note, though, that I would have been willing to give Nemo a benefit of doubt and keep silent even if he had simply changed his defensive priorities exactly according to his opponent offensive plans, in the process of the Armageddon game, thanks to his reputation, even though his supposed deduction of PH's intent was based on really shaky ground to begin with. What - in the hindsight - convinced me of ill intent on Nemo's part is his "Information leak" campaign, started in the post above. More precisely, the fact that it was entirely baseless. PH's AAR is publicly available. You can read it and note, that there is nothing but general advice on optimal use of the Allied arsenal there. Which is a perfectly reasonable for an open AAR. Certainly no indication whatsoever that PH was heading into a trap. Add to this sudden change from condescencing tone towards PH to demonstrative respect towards the latter "ability to deduce stuff from hints", when numerous people have stated in Nemo's AAR that there wasn't, in fact, any information leak, and this all was too suspicious for me to overlook, so I went back to check the time, and you can see what I've found.

And also I should note that while I actually indeed had doubts about Nemo121 character and validity of my accusations, he removed them entirely by the first line of the first post in this thread. He knows well, that I'm not responsible for the "Information leak" that promted his post from the screenshot above. And not even because this leak does not exist. Because unless he believes that Panzerjaeger Hortlund conspired with me to gain an unfair advantage - in which case PH obviously had no frikking reason to ever tell Nemo anyting, so this version is automatically excluded - he knows, that I did warn PH that his plans were peeked into only once, and that I couldn't do it more than once, because PH talked about all this stuff to Nemo as soon as I did. In fact, anyone in doubt can just check that with PH. Yet in the said line Nemo accuses me of sending both of his defensive plans in the Armageddon game to Panzerjaeger Hortlund. Thus proving himself a liar. And, by the way, more or less accusing PH of using my help to cheat the first time I "emailed Nemo's plans" to him and keeping silent about that. Thus slandering his opponent as well. Screw him.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/9/2011 4:34:47 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 12
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 4:41:29 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3115
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline
FatR...

You have made your mind up on nothing more than a hunch. The evidence you have posted here is rubbish, if your accusation wasn’t so serious it would be a joke. If anything your two posts incriminate you instead of Nemo. You accuse Nemo of long-term cheating against multiple opponents, yet the best evidence you can post is a normal AAR.

That you would then take it upon yourself to launch a campaign of spying and information sharing against Nemo on a this hunch is appalling. It is in-fact you that has been cheating here and not Nemo, and you have posted the evidence to prove it. I must also add that I hope you don’t go anywhere near any of my AAR’s, and if you did I would be contacting my opponent.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 13
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 5:29:08 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1502
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
You guys know this is just a game, right? I enjoy it as much as any of you, but this is all a little silly.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 14
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 5:30:03 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Ok I'm going to try to keep this civil and to the point....

1. I happen not to have read PH's AAR yet. I have, however, asked others to check the timeline of posts and suchlike and make their own independent judgements regarding whether or not leaks occurred. These are people whose judgement and honesty I trust. In addition I have discussed this issue with PH who has confirmed your PMing him with my plans.

2. I also PMed you asking for an apology when this happened as I thought it might be possible to talk with you and have you see reason. Instead I got two abusive replies, one of which included the clear implication that since you had sat as jury, judge and executioner and determined I was a cheater you would feel free to leak my plans in future PBEMs. THAT post is the reason I asked you to stay out of this AAR and agreed various security measures with my opponent ( not naming him, delaying the AAR etc).

3. I see the "proof" you provide. I won't argue against it as circumstancial evidence has weight because of the belief people put in it and paranoid people put a lot more belief than is warranted. No amount of evidence will convince some people that World Jewry didn't fly planes into the Twin Towers and I expect no amount of evidence will convince you I'm not a cheater. In effect you will see what you've already decided to see and ignore anything which argues against that "truth" you choose to believe.


I will outline the timeline one more time just so others are clear:
a) As the game progressed I was PMed by ONE person to say they were concerned about some posts on the PH thread which asked questions in a way that a good player would be able to draw the appropriate conclusions. This person PMed me because while they thought I'd handle PH fairly easily I had stated several times to them by PM that I thought PH would be a formidable opponent because he had a very realistic view of the problem and of himself and didn't appear to engage in self-deception... That usually marks out a top-notch player IMO.

b) I set up various aerial defensive plans and identified various targets which I feared would be bombed and were critical junctures of production in the AAR. All of a sudden PH totally changed his strategic bombing priorities. After I told the person who had been concerned about posts on PH's forum of the change in bombing priorities I was informed that there had been leading discussion/questions about this in his AAR. I was told it was subtle but if PH was good as I said then he'd figure it out.

c) At this point I decided that leading questions/advice would be a problem and decided that if there were leading questions/advice about bombing targets than I had to assume there was similar advice on landing sites. As such I had to assume my previous planning was blown and would act accordingly. I still kept reinforcing the Kuriles just in case but I did begin reinforcing Korea more ( although it had already received over a half-dozen divisions by that stage as it was always a possible landing zone ).

So, it is all very simple... Leading questions/advice led to a switch in bombing tactics which meant I had to assume similar leading questions/advice had blown my defensive planning in Hokkaido. I didn't abandon defensive planning in Hokkaido though because:
a) I was still assuming there might be future leaks and so by not mentioning the fact that I continued to reinforce Hokkaido and the Kuriles I was hopeful whoever was leaking might suggest an invasion of Hokkaido/the Kuriles as counter-intuitive and thus fall into a trap.
b) I still wasn't sure where PH would land. My best guess was Korea as that was the 2nd target which most closely met the criteria which made Hokkaido/theKuriles suitable. That's just elementary strategy.


4. As to the PMs.
My understanding is that you PMed PH once at this stage to accuse me of cheating and told him that as he changed his plan I'd changed mine.
My understanding is that you also PMed him again at a later date to inform him that I had prepared defences in Korea.

To my mind that is two significant breaches of FOW within the one game and both are clearly intentional. You appear to have justified both of those on the basis of my assumption that FOW had been breached by your posts on his AAR. In essence it appears you created the FOW breach I was informed of and then when I changed my plans because of that FOW breach decided that constituted proof of my cheating. Talk about having your cake and eating it


5. As to my new opponent.
One of the things with a paranoid person is that they create what we call a "construct". They then "incorporate" new items into the paranoid construct in the absence of proof. So you've gone from viewing my reaction to your breach of FOW as proof that I'm cheating to accusing me of manufacturing imaginary opponents and cheating in all my other PBEMs. The first had, at least, one tiny circumstancial piece of "evidence" the other two have no evidence at all. Sadly this is the pattern of paranoia.


6. As to guessing the hand correctly.
I guessed Hokkaido and the Kuriles cause it made sense. I changed my plans because I was told a leak had occured regarding my industry and what should be targeted. I then saw a HUGE change in Allied bombing strategy which specifically targeted what I had spoken of as being vital in my AAR. In that situation it makes sense to think that if one thing was leaked then everything might have been leaked. I didn't ask if it had been, I simply decided that I had to act as if it had been. I then posted this to my AAR.
If Hokkaido was chosen for invasion then the same thinking makes Korea the 2nd choice. That's not cheating, that's just basic strategy. You don't have to cheat to do that simple math.


7. Condescension?
BS FatR. Hell, I was having PM discussions from the time the game started about PH having a great deal of self-awareness which made me think he'd be a very dangerous opponent. That was one reason why even obtuse references and questions were so dangerous. He is smart enough to figure them out easily.

8. Info leaks:
FatR, I can't believe that you are trying to row back from leaking my defences in Korea to PH. You have previously admitted it to me and PH has told me you leaked it to him. So, unless you want to call him a liar you are caught in your own trap.


As to PH...
No I'm not accusing him of cheating. You are, again, simply making stuff up and then getting upset about it. PH didn't cheat. On the other hand if someone tells you your opponent has prepared defences on the exact beaches you are planning to invade only a moron would continue to invade those beaches. That's not cheating, that's just a natural reaction to the idiot who ruined your game by telling you your opponent's gameplan.



FatR,
Sometimes I am really, really angry with you and then sometimes when I actually write the thought processes out I feel very sad for you. I know nothing I say will change your opinion. Paranoia is like that. What I would like is that you simply leave me alone so I can enjoy a PBEM without worrying about you breaching FOW again and again ( as you told me in PM you feel justified in doing in my future games ).

Sometimes I bear you emnity, in my better moments I don't. What I really want is just to be able to PBEM a game I enjoy without fear that after months of time being invested you will suddenly appear and wreck it all because you've incorporated me into a paranoid construct.

Again, I'd ask you to leave this AAR alone, respect my wish ( and my opponent's wish ) that you have nothing to do with it and contact neither of us. You are paranoid. No amount of evidence will get you to change your mind. However I am asking that you leave me alone and stop cyber-stalking me and slandering me.

As the last piece of evidence for you to ponder I would say this. If I WERE to cheat I wouldn't be nearly so stupid as to provide even circumstancial evidence of it two hours later. My best defence that I wasn't cheating is simply that I'd never be so stupid to be so sloppy as to leave even circumstantial evidence. Being that sloppy would actually offend me.

So, bottom line, stop cyber-stalking me. I want to PBEM friends in peace, that's all.


Yakface,
Sorry but I strenuously reject the idea that there can be any comparison between his "version" and mine. I am stating what happened. He is drawing conclusions from almost nothing which simply don't have an evidentiary basis. I simply don't accept that there's the sort of equivalence which calling them "versions" grants. If someone accussed you of being a rapist on the basis that you were in the same town as a rape occurred I wouldn't say there were "two versions" of events. I would say that there was no proof and until they produced proof you were utterly innocent. So, sorry, I think "versions" is misleading.

Of course I know rape and cheating in a PBEM are different levels of evil BUT my integrity and honesty is still being called into question here and I value both of those things. I certainly may fight my corner in an argument toughly and I may hold opinions you don't like but integrity and honesty are things I value hugely.


madflava,
It is a game. Being accused of being a cheat and liar isn't. Simple distinction.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/9/2011 5:31:24 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 15
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 5:33:07 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
FATR sounds like total crap to me I dont see any evidence to support your position as I have played Nemo several times with AAR's and I trust him implicitly not sure what else to say.

The same thing happened to me and it came very close to ruining a game for me both me and PZB - I hasten to add a baseless accusation - the fact is the best players of both sides dont need to peek they are simply that good - having played Nemo I know he is in that camp and this is a baseless accusation and I would personally have needed a LOT more evidence before I took the extreme step you took as it ruins a number of peoples enjoyment of the game.

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 5/9/2011 5:37:08 PM >

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 16
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 5:51:36 PM   
Yakface

 

Posts: 715
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
I wasn't suggesting they were equivalent. Just that neither would change your opinions - wehther they were objectively justifiable or completely whacko.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 17
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 5:54:47 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

8. Info leaks:
FatR, I can't believe that you are trying to row back from leaking my defences in Korea to PH. You have previously admitted it to me and PH has told me you leaked it to him. So, unless you want to call him a liar you are caught in your own trap.

Well, and I can't believe you are brazen enough to accuse me of that, cause it is fairly clear to anyone with basic reading compehension that I'm not trying to back down from telling PH that his plans are being read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
As to PH...
No I'm not accusing him of cheating. You are, again, simply making stuff up and then getting upset about it. PH didn't cheat.

You do. Right here, in the bold:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
FatR, if you are reading this you are specifically asked to refrain from cheating and destroying this AAR by emailing my opponent all my plans as you have TWICE done in the past.

If PH kept silent (or indeed accepted any emails from me) after the first email leak, and only went to you after the second - and that's what you are saying, he cheated.

And if you had cared, you would have noticed, that I deny responsibility for telling PH anything before 12/2/2010, when you raised the stink about information leaks. Because I didn't, in fact emailed, PMed, or posted any sensitive information to him before that. And no one did. I don't deny telling him that you peeked into his change of plans to Korea. Because that I told him. But TWICE sounds more accusatory, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
So, bottom line, stop cyber-stalking me. I want to PBEM friends in peace, that's all.

That's why you did everything you could, short of emaling me, to ensure with 100% certainty, that I'll take a look at this thread if only to avoid being character assasinated, instead, of, I don't know, complaining to mods about cyberstalking?

I also love how you brought everything from antisemitism to rape in the topic, just to squeeze a few righteous indignation points out of it. Stay classy, Nemo.



< Message edited by FatR -- 5/9/2011 6:01:38 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 18
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 6:12:10 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Thanks Andy, I appreciate that.

And now back to the game....

8th September:

A LOT of action. It was almost a 4 MB file. Basically my bombers went in an creamed Naha. Over 400 IJAAF and IJNAF bombers went in at 6,000 feet with almost perfect recon intelligence and destroyed almost every single Allied plane on the airfield. Allied night-time CAP was very weak, which helped hugely. You NEED to intercept night bombing missions in order to put them off their aim. Even if you don't shoot a single one down you'll save many planes/factories on the ground with the interception.

The Allies swamped Hong Kong and Shanghai with 4-engined and twin-engined bombers and eliminated pretty much all of the HI in those cities.

I tried standing up to P38s and P51Ds over FOrmosa to test my air force and paid with it with some 200 fighters destroyed or damaged. I got maybe half that number of Allied fighters. Elsewhere I faced a small number of P-51s and lost perhaps 30 fighters without shooting a single P-51H down. The 51H is a terrible thing to face in the air. I'll have to try to dodge them as much as I can, which won't be easy as he can pick the time and place of the fight.

In terms of the sub war I lost a CVE, a couple of escorts and two transports to subs in moving 150 miles from Nagasaki. OUCH !!! His subs are everywhere. Still, in return I think my escorts sank 3 of them. 5 ships lost and I haven't even moved within 150 miles of Naha.


So, in terms of losses how did we do. Well, I lost all but 9 Kamikazes to enemy A2A interception ( kamikaze height bug ). That accounted for 85 planes. Japan lost 124 non-kamikazes including 10 Ki-264s and about a dozen other bombers. The rest were mostly A7M and Ki-84a losses, second-line fighters....

In return I destroyed 60 P38s in A2A combat. I only destroyed 3 P47Ns in the air but I destroyed 225 on Naha airfield. I also destroyed an additional 211 A-26C and 108 P38L as well as 19 F7A Liberators, 20 P-61Cs and 34 Avengers at Naha. In total 527 Allied planes were destroyed on the ground. HUGE, HUGE victory for Japan, particularly the P47Ns. I just wish I'd killed some P-51s.

I can see multiple PT flotillas around Okinawa but I don't care. I need to strike swiftly. I'm sending the transports in with only their local escorts and the DDs and CA TF. If I wait for my PTs to sweep his PTs I'll never land before the USN CVs arrive. So, in we go...

Tomorrow will be interesting, the Allies have some 30+ DDs and maybe 30 or 40 PTs in the area. Essentially their navy at Okinawa is almost the size of mine. Will they stand and fight or will they be shocked into not being effective?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 19
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 6:18:46 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
FatR,
When people I trust tell me one thing and you tell me another... well, no points for whom I go with.

As to luring you here. No, I don't want you here. Again, what you perceive is not reality. Please leave.

As to the accusation that I am accusing PH of cheating. No, you are putting words into my mouth. I'd thank you to stop.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 20
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 6:49:21 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3677
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
quote:

What I would like is that you simply leave me alone so I can enjoy a PBEM without worrying about you breaching FOW again and again


+1 from an avid reader of Nemo's AARs , utterly ruins the experience for a lot more people than just the players. Let it drop FatR please !

anyhoo , best of luck Nemo (not that you usually need it mind you )

_____________________________

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 #: 21
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 6:53:28 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16132
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


That's why you did everything you could, short of emaling me, to ensure with 100% certainty, that I'll take a look at this thread if only to avoid being character assasinated, instead, of, I don't know, complaining to mods about cyberstalking?



FatR, the only thing I know about this situation is what I've read in this thread. I see lots of "justifications" from you for doing what you did in PM's, but I don't see any actual facts that prove your accusation of Nemo cheating.

There is no character assasination going on here. You are ruining your reputation by your own words and actions. You are in a deep hole and you should quit digging.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 22
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:10:43 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14754
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

That's why you did everything you could, short of emaling me, to ensure with 100% certainty, that I'll take a look at this thread if only to avoid being character assasinated, instead, of, I don't know, complaining to mods about cyberstalking?



FatR, the only thing I know about this situation is what I've read in this thread. I see lots of "justifications" from you for doing what you did in PM's, but I don't see any actual facts that prove your accusation of Nemo cheating.

There is no character assasination going on here. You are ruining your reputation by your own words and actions. You are in a deep hole and you should quit digging.


Agree. Assertions are not proved by being bombastic or being repeated. The fact that Nemo's opponent did not believe them should have been enough to close the matter. Disclosing Nemo's plans as so-called proof was way out of line and no proof at all. Sometimes players accurately assess their opponents' plans, and some players do so more often and accurately than others. Permission is not required.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 23
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:26:01 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
FatR, the only thing I know about this situation is what I've read in this thread. I see lots of "justifications" from you for doing what you did in PM's, but I don't see any actual facts that prove your accusation of Nemo cheating.

Well, there are undisputable facts that:
a)Nemo, by his own words (you can check the screensnot above, in fact), had unknown someone reporting him stuff going on in PH's Armageddon AAR. That unknown someone wasn't one of the posters who commented in Nemo's own AAR, although it would have been fairly appropriate for him to voice during the lenghty discussion of the supposed information leaks. According to Nemo's words, as per point 6 of post #15 in this tread, that unknown someone also somehow failed to inform Nemo that even the general advice he considered a leak is only limited to strategic bombing and other basic asset utilization, and there are zero posts related to possible Japanese defensive scheme in PH's AAR.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I guessed Hokkaido and the Kuriles cause it made sense. I changed my plans because I was told a leak had occured regarding my industry and what should be targeted. I then saw a HUGE change in Allied bombing strategy which specifically targeted what I had spoken of as being vital in my AAR. In that situation it makes sense to think that if one thing was leaked then everything might have been leaked. I didn't ask if it had been, I simply decided that I had to act as if it had been. I then posted this to my AAR.

And Nemo, despite devoting a lot of time to discussing this "information leak", somehow failed to ask.

b)Nemo perfectly knew PH's plans every time and far before there were any signs of them being put in motion, if not immediately. In fact, again according to Nemo's words above, he DID change his defense plans from Hokkaido to Korea literally within hours of PH changing his attack goal from Hokkaido to Korea.

I dearly hope that people who can trust anoher player after something like that won't ever play any games with money at stake.

By the way, I wonder if that unknown someone who reported on PH's AAR for Nemo can raise his hand now.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 24
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:42:52 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
FatR,

I didn't fail to ask. I CHOSE not to ask so as to avoid putting him in a position where he'd have to leak information/plans from PH's AAR. He informed me FOW had been breached and that was valid since it was alerting me to possible manipulation of the AAR by you. That was all I needed to know. Asking HOW it had been breached and which precise plans had been leaked would have been putting that person in the position of breaching PH's FOW and planning. So I didn't ask so as not to put that person into that position.

This really is turning into a conspiracy theory... If I'd asked him which plans exactly were leaked I'd have been accused of getting him to do what you did. Since I didn't ask him I'm somehow accused of lying about it or doing something somehow suspicious. And now not only is my current opponent a figment of my imagination but this other person is also. Sometimes you've just got to laugh . Do you, perchance, think I was in New York about nine and a half years ago or in Dallas in 1963, or helping film something on a soundstage in 1969?

My current opponent is free to come forward if he wants, this person is free to come forward if they want. Understandably enough they have told me they don't fancy making a target of themselves to the likes of you. I'm sure you'll present this as proof they don't exist. I would offer the alternative viewpoint that they simply don't want you to incorporate them into your paranoid delusions and have you launch vitriolic attacks against them.

Now, again, I am asking you to please leave this thread. I have no desire to have this AAR become a showcase of how paranoia can blight wargaming and social interactions. If you want to post this sort of stuff please start a new thread and do so rather than polluting an AAR. I have a long history of supporting freedom of speech even if the person speaking and the thoughts expressed are dislikeable in the extreme. While I find your views odious in the extreme and irrational I support your right to hold them and express them, even though they hurt me deeply. However I think you should express them elsewhere and not in my AAR.

Continual posting here by you after being asked to leave is in clear breach of established moderation of AARs and if it continues I'll have to ask the moderators to intervene. I, personally, have no problem if you choose to start a new thread about how much of a cheat I am but I would ask you to abide by my wishes and to stop cyber-stalking me and polluting this thread.

Now, please, leave.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/9/2011 8:46:57 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 25
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:45:56 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16132
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
FatR, the only thing I know about this situation is what I've read in this thread. I see lots of "justifications" from you for doing what you did in PM's, but I don't see any actual facts that prove your accusation of Nemo cheating.

Well, there are undisputable facts that:
a)Nemo, by his own words (you can check the screensnot above, in fact), had unknown someone reporting him stuff going on in PH's Armageddon AAR. That unknown someone wasn't one of the posters who commented in Nemo's own AAR, although it would have been fairly appropriate for him to voice during the lenghty discussion of the supposed information leaks. According to Nemo's words, as per point 6 of post #15 in this tread, that unknown someone also somehow failed to inform Nemo that even the general advice he considered a leak is only limited to strategic bombing and other basic asset utilization, and there are zero posts related to possible Japanese defensive scheme in PH's AAR.



You left out the most important part of what I was talking about. I can list indisputable facts as well:
1. The sun came up today.
2. The sun will set tonight.
3. The sun will come up tomorrow.

Do my facts prove your accusation that Nemo cheated? NO. Neither do any of the facts you listed. In fact, what you posted doesn't mention any actions that Nemo took, only actions that another person on the forums took. Concluding from those facts that Nemo cheated is a fallacy of logic. It is the same as if you concluded that PH is a cheater because you took some course of action. It's completely faulty logic.

If you do have any factual evidence that Nemo cheated, please post that evidence. Otherwise, you really should stop digging.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 26
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:58:10 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4009
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
FatR

I have read Nemo's AARs and interacted with him on the forums a handful of times, have followed everything from this thread, and I have to say that your talking out of your ass.

And to question a man on as many levels as you did with hardly more than a hunch? shame on you.

Judge Judy is on during the afternoon while the rest of us are working our day jobs. Maybe you should make an appointment.

Nemo - looking forward to following this AAR if it doesn't blow up. I respect you keeping your opponent hidden, and I trust he is of flesh and blood... This scenario has been calling my name, but I have never given it any attention of as yet. Looking forward to following your strategies and discussion. Top notch as always.


_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 27
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 8:59:48 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 1930
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
Wow - I have to check out from the forum & games for a little while and this stuff is going on? I'm sorry to see this.

FatR - I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. I agree with Mike (USS America) that you should stop digging.


TTFN,

Mike

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 28
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 9:08:38 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Just to break up the craziness here I think I should post my Turn 2 combat report... It is, after all, an AAR, if FatR would just leave...

8th September 1945...

Japanese bombers pound Naga at night. I've set the IJA bomber force to 10,000 feet at night as per an agreement requested by my opponent to limit their night-time effectiveness by increasing their altitude. In spite of a huge number of engineers at Naga the bombers still leave the airfield with about 20% runway damage the next morning. Not great, as I had hoped to close it, but enough to hold out the promise of a gradual reduction in airfield capability and its eventual closure. This is important because with the airfield closed any Allied resupply will HAVE to be supported by CVs and that means I'll be able to send PTs, subs and kamikazes out to attack the CVs and attrit them.

Allied bombers hit Kobe at low altitude during the daytime and utterly trash 400+ defending fighters. About 30 B-29s are downed but they destroy over 700 HI, an utterly unsustainable level of loss. We discuss the lethality of low-level bombing and agree that four-engineds at daytime will never fly below 20,000 feet, no matter the mission.


The fleet makes it to Naha, suffering another 4 losses to submarines as well as another CVE torpedoed and probably going to sink before it makes port --- these CVEs are decoys though, I only have 8 Zeroes on board all 3 CVEs. I'm letting him see them to draw subs away from my main CV TF which is now 46 miles from Naha, providing CAP for the invasion TF.

The fleet unloads and takes horrendous losses on landing. Many units are reduced to 40 to 50% effectives with only my Elite units ( defined as anyone with an experience greater than 50 ) surviving with more than 60% combat-ready troops. Most of my troops only have Experience of 20 to 25% and so they get disrupted very easily.

Why so many inexperienced units?
1. It is all I have. I have to use what I have.

2. I don't plan to destroy the Allies at Naga immediately. I plan to launch attack after attack after attack. I want to wear them down, hold out the promise of survival if they are resupplied and use Naga to draw in the Allied fleet and attrit it but also to draw their army units in and attrit them. So many attacks will allow my units to build significant levels of experience.

3. Eventually when I have to withdraw from Okinawa the 5,000+ AV I am landing will be able to form the core of a very successful counter-attack force vs any other landings... This is one reason why the counter-invasion force in Okinawa comprises so many tanks. Not only will they be effective in Okinawa but they'll also be very effective post-Okinawa, particularly with the huge boost in experience they will gain in the fighting there.

So, plans within plans, within plans. There are short-term, medium term and long-term plans running within this operation.


In the air it is clear that I need to withdraw fighters from the front line in order to bolster the defences of the mainland. Unfortunately right now I need to keep the 700 best fighters and pilots I have committed to this operation ( either on the CVs or at Amami Oshima and Nagasaki ). Once I'm ashore and reasonably safe I can afford to pull the navy fighters back and let some Army fighters take to the skies over Naha as CAP.


Anyways, by the end of Day 2 I have some 3,000 AV ashore with probably another 2,000 AV ashore but in a disabled state. My disruption is huge but the Allies are mainly base troops, engineers, FlAK etc so tomorrow should see me retake Naha and inflict significant casualties.

Enemy CD guns and AAA have done sterling work in defending the beaches and an additional 30 of my xAKLs and LSTs have sunk with another 30 or so in sinking condition. It looks like my losses for this operation will definitely be closer to the 150 ships than 100 ship mark. Of course I will mostly lose the small xAKLs and suchlike which I can easily afford to lose. My losses in larger merchants should be much less. The overall impact on my ability to transport fuel and supplies from China to Japan shouldn't be significant, even though the numbers look horrific.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 29
RE: Nemesis... FatR PROHIBITED !!!! - 5/9/2011 9:14:32 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4009
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
You mentioned taking the two Okinawa bases as a goal before the Allies can do anything. Is this your focus for your main goal... ?

In other words... we all know the inevitable with this scenario and IRL, but are you setting a goal of- If I do this, I accomplish my mission regardless of the final game outcome?

Maybe I should re-read your OP

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Nemesis... Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.125