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

RE: Power Balance

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Power Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Power Balance - 7/30/2011 3:49:12 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7139
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
As far as losing LCUs is concerned, if you are playing one of the later betas it helps, because you can rebuild most of your losses.

Honestly, this knowledge tends to make me more agressive in my defense.

From what you describe, your opponent is playing too defensive, but it seems more like he is unable to accept that he will suffer some losses. That is inevitable, as either side in this game. You know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 31
RE: Power Balance - 7/31/2011 4:00:07 PM   
Archangel85

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/15/2010
Status: offline
Indeed - stuff gets broken in war, that is the way it goes. The first half of 1942, at the very least, is the time where the Allies basically trade one thing for another - a cruiser for an invasion delayed by a week, an island for forces to hold another island, a fleet carrier for 60 trained aircrews and planes. I do somewhat agree with him, that at some point you have to force excessive losses on your enemy. Like ambushing an invasion convoy with a carrier group after getting SIGINT. And I agree with him that it is incredibly frustrating at times, to watch a carrier battle where you lose everything and your return strike hits nothing.

But tell him this: The Allies are playing the long game. An allied carrier that is sunk will eventually be replaced (and bring two buddies with him, just because). If you lose a troop transport on the allied side, you reach behind you and pull out another 5. A Japanese carrier sunk is gone, and they need every single tiny advantage to get them through 1943. Downing a dozen Betties is a major victory, right there. Sinking one of the large 15ktons tankers the Japanese have is a big victory. The same applies to fast transport ships, cruisers and so on. Those are all assets they can not afford to lose, and sinking 2-3 fast transports in an invasion is a victory even if the base is taken.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 32
RE: Power Balance - 7/31/2011 4:20:35 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7139
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archangel85

Indeed - stuff gets broken in war, that is the way it goes. The first half of 1942, at the very least, is the time where the Allies basically trade one thing for another - a cruiser for an invasion delayed by a week, an island for forces to hold another island, a fleet carrier for 60 trained aircrews and planes. I do somewhat agree with him, that at some point you have to force excessive losses on your enemy. Like ambushing an invasion convoy with a carrier group after getting SIGINT. And I agree with him that it is incredibly frustrating at times, to watch a carrier battle where you lose everything and your return strike hits nothing.

But tell him this: The Allies are playing the long game. An allied carrier that is sunk will eventually be replaced (and bring two buddies with him, just because). If you lose a troop transport on the allied side, you reach behind you and pull out another 5. A Japanese carrier sunk is gone, and they need every single tiny advantage to get them through 1943. Downing a dozen Betties is a major victory, right there. Sinking one of the large 15ktons tankers the Japanese have is a big victory. The same applies to fast transport ships, cruisers and so on. Those are all assets they can not afford to lose, and sinking 2-3 fast transports in an invasion is a victory even if the base is taken.


This is very true, even from the Japanese side as the war progresses. Sure you want to save the BBs and CVs for missions in 44-45, but I've been known to run subs or destroyers in to disrupt landings or even unloading operations at enemy ports. It may cost me 2 DDs, but there is that chance I sink a transport carrying the bulk of a combat LCU that will force an opponent to change plans or delay an invasion.

It's all about risk versus reward. Allied players have a lot more to play with due to the fact that they will get replacements for lost ships, planes and pilots down the line.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Archangel85)
Post #: 33
RE: Power Balance - 8/1/2011 8:11:58 PM   
Barb


Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
My opponent said I should find another "dick" to play this "broken" game against.

_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 34
RE: Power Balance - 8/1/2011 9:15:28 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
It's probably better that way... 

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 35
RE: Power Balance - 8/1/2011 9:16:52 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18095
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

My opponent said I should find another "dick" to play this "broken" game against.

What a putz.

Well, congratulations on your victory, Barb. You've earned it. Take a few days to relish the breaking of your opponent's will and then get right back on that horse, sir.

_____________________________


(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 36
RE: Power Balance - 8/1/2011 9:42:33 PM   
Barb


Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Well, I cannot consider it as a victory, as my opponent blames the game and air/land combat.

I will take a little pause and maybe someone will take over ... If theres anyone interested in taking over almost untouched allied forces and play them in historical fashion, PM me.


< Message edited by Barb -- 8/1/2011 9:43:49 PM >


_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 37
RE: Power Balance - 8/1/2011 9:51:00 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18095
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Doesn't matter what your opponent 'blames'. He concedes if he leaves the game. You win, he loses. You're selling yourself short and you're giving your flaky opponent much more credit than he deserves. Quitters never win, they lose. He lost, you won. Embrace your victory, dude.

_____________________________


(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 38
RE: Power Balance - 8/1/2011 10:55:54 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2619
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archangel85

.....

But tell him this: The Allies are playing the long game. An allied carrier that is sunk will eventually be replaced (and bring two buddies with him, just because). If you lose a troop transport on the allied side, you reach behind you and pull out another 5. A Japanese carrier sunk is gone, and they need every single tiny advantage to get them through 1943. Downing a dozen Betties is a major victory, right there. Sinking one of the large 15ktons tankers the Japanese have is a big victory. The same applies to fast transport ships, cruisers and so on. Those are all assets they can not afford to lose, and sinking 2-3 fast transports in an invasion is a victory even if the base is taken.


About the only victories I have as of Jan 15th 1942 are a IJ disaster cordinating a Neil attack on Manilla and an ambush of some Betty's after I got some RAF fighters to Burma a little earlier than expected Your words resound hope for the cause!

Otherwise I watch the IJN terrorize the land of OZ at the moment and ahve very little reosurces besides Dutch Subs to provide any threat .... but ... just wait! :)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Archangel85)
Post #: 39
RE: Power Balance - 8/2/2011 10:21:32 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: Archangel85

.....

But tell him this: The Allies are playing the long game. An allied carrier that is sunk will eventually be replaced (and bring two buddies with him, just because). If you lose a troop transport on the allied side, you reach behind you and pull out another 5. A Japanese carrier sunk is gone, and they need every single tiny advantage to get them through 1943. Downing a dozen Betties is a major victory, right there. Sinking one of the large 15ktons tankers the Japanese have is a big victory. The same applies to fast transport ships, cruisers and so on. Those are all assets they can not afford to lose, and sinking 2-3 fast transports in an invasion is a victory even if the base is taken.


About the only victories I have as of Jan 15th 1942 are a IJ disaster cordinating a Neil attack on Manilla and an ambush of some Betty's after I got some RAF fighters to Burma a little earlier than expected Your words resound hope for the cause!

Otherwise I watch the IJN terrorize the land of OZ at the moment and ahve very little reosurces besides Dutch Subs to provide any threat .... but ... just wait! :)





Only little success? You have downed 630 aircraft with aircrew he will never be able to replace, to just 280(and many of these probably on the ground, so no pilot losses...) of yours. Congrats!

< Message edited by Erkki -- 8/2/2011 10:22:07 AM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 40
RE: Power Balance - 8/6/2011 8:47:32 AM   
Barb


Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Well its all over. After long debates and disagreements about historicity, we both stepped out of the game. My opponent couldnt bear the fact that he loss the 25th US division and Luganville as the last drop. I even offered him to evacuate his units, but that didnt do either. Anyway daily disagreements with him due to a game didnt do any good for me too. So the best way was to stop playing.

Now I'll probably wait until the next official patch is out, and then I could try to start 2x2 or 2x3 game.


_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 41
RE: Power Balance - 8/6/2011 1:45:32 PM   
5thGuardsTankArmy


Posts: 89
Joined: 1/23/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Hi,

at first I am Japanese player. However now I am speaking on behalf of my PBEM partner playing the Allies.

I played for the allies two or three times in old witp and I know it is not easy to play the side that is "losing" at the moment. He threatened to seriously quit three times already - but I managed to convince him to play along.

First thing: A Japanese division and regiment kicked three australian brigades off Port Moresby in January on first deliberate attack. It was as surprising to him as to me. I supposed that I will prevail, but not on first attack with 4:3 ratio.

Second thing: We had a "small" carrier battle we reversed (to convince him to stay in the game). 84 Dauntless bombers managed to hit 3 carriers with 1 bomb each and two battleships with 6 and 5 bombs respectively. Shouldnt the carriers had priority? How could Allies with CA/CL escorts get fair CV-CV battle with Japs that have BBs in their CVTF? To get some hits on the BBs is OK, but why it was three times more than carriers?

Third thing: We reduced fighters to: sweep at best mvr altitude, CAP and escort on second best altitude. So P-40E and A6M2 Zero or Ki-43 Oscar could sweep at 15,000 and cap at 20,000. He is using squadrons that were training since the start of war or their arrival on map. It is June 1942 and he is losing almost two times the number Japanese are losing. In total he had lost 534 fighters in A2A (867 fighters total of 1430 planes total) to my 276 fighters in A2A (517 fighters total of 1440 planes total). Majority of my losses are unescorted bombers, flak and operational losses. My sweeps usually has 1:1-2 kill ratio. His sweeps got massacred in 5-10:1 kill ratio. He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements.

How are the allies supposed to win air supperiority? Are the allies supposed to EVADE Japs until second half of 1943?




My ADVICE to you sir, dumb that man you call opponent andf get a real opponent.
This I say because thretening to leave the game in itself should be reason enugth for you to dump that unserius (and incompetent?) opponent.

My two €uro's anyway..


(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 42
RE: Power Balance - 8/6/2011 3:32:33 PM   
offenseman


Posts: 595
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Broomfield, Colorado USA
Status: online
The fellow sounds most unreasonable.  It is lucky he did it now rather than after investing even more time into it; before he lost one more of something that made the game unplayable.

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to 5thGuardsTankArmy)
Post #: 43
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Power Balance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.090