Mavis L

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Mavis L

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 >> Mavis L

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:19:12 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

Okay...need a little direction here....

my opponent has just kicked my ass across the map. So I admit I'm more then frustrated with the game anyway. Im use to that...it's not like I ever win much at the game I think I have lost every game I have played for 10 years.

But the thing is, he is using Mavis L seaplanes to deploy paratroopers. Dropping them deep deep behind lines and pinning troops (in Australia) so they have no path of retreat. Which allows him to go for kill shots. With regular transports I have accepted that it is a valid tactic. Didn't much enjoy it, but it was a lesson learned. With seaplanes, that's pushing the limits of credibility with the game. It seems like a very gamey tactic and certainly something I would have never "thought" to do in my many outtings as the japanese player.

Now to me that's pushing reality a bit too much. It's not their intended use by the game designers...nor the japanese.

he says it's a valid tactic.

is it? And please tell me if it is. I will go back to my game with my tail tucked firmly between my legs and continue to watch the beating I'm taking.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:34:43 AM

Quixote

Posts: 333
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Is he dropping entire units, or just fragments to trap you? (And do you have any house rules about this? I've been following your AAR, but I don't remember.)

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 2

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:34:55 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 6144
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

I wikied the Mavis L and all I can tell is a certain number of the produciton build run was for "transport." I don't know if they have wheels, but a paratrooper can jump out of anything with a big enough side or rear door. Any sort of CAP ought to chew them up in a hurry, but I don't see any reason that jumps out to say they couldn't work for paratroopers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 3

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:39:21 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quixote

Is he dropping entire units, or just fragments to trap you? (And do you have any house rules about this? I've been following your AAR, but I don't remember.)

nah no house rules...I really don't like too many of them because I believe if Im doing something that annoys my opponent..then I stop. Sort of build the rules of the game as you go.

_____________________________

(in reply to Quixote)

Post #: 4

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:40:02 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I wikied the Mavis L and all I can tell is a certain number of the produciton build run was for "transport." I don't know if they have wheels, but a paratrooper can jump out of anything with a big enough side or rear door. Any sort of CAP ought to chew them up in a hurry, but I don't see any reason that jumps out to say they couldn't work for paratroopers.

So I need to quite my whining and take my beating

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 5

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:46:17 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 6144
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I wikied the Mavis L and all I can tell is a certain number of the produciton build run was for "transport." I don't know if they have wheels, but a paratrooper can jump out of anything with a big enough side or rear door. Any sort of CAP ought to chew them up in a hurry, but I don't see any reason that jumps out to say they couldn't work for paratroopers.

So I need to quite my whining and take my beating

I can't really comment since I'm reading both sides today and his AAR is ahead of yours. But a page or so back in the AAR we talked a little about Oz. Take another look.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 6

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 2:56:51 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

no i remember the conversation. There was just no way in the world I thought he could reach kalgooie with paratroopers. (though I think he moved an armored unit down to it). As far as defending perth...honestly I just don't have enough troops on the board to defend everything. To me if he took western australia then he took it...not like he would stay (much like his move in alaska) so it was a lower priority. Now eastern australia...very different story.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 7

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:03:55 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 6144
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 8

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:21:14 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

quote:

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

no I didn't

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 9

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:23:22 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 6144
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

quote:

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

no I didn't

There ya go!

Hey, it's only September 1942.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 10

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:35:46 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

It's october.

I have no intention of surrendering...I intend to see this one through. I am pretty frustrated though admittedly. I'm sure in the light of day tomorrow his use of paratroopers will be a smaller deal to me. Just hella frustrating because I sat back and studied Australia and said...no way he can make a drop here. The only thing I was worried about was armor (which he tried) and I spotted them.

winds of war and all that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 11

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:51:18 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 4426
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

I won't comment here (as I am reading the other side as well) other than to say I had to ask how he did it as well. Impressive. I would have fallen for it as well, if that makes you feel any better.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 12

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:53:54 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I won't comment here (as I am reading the other side as well) other than to say I had to ask how he did it as well.� Impressive.� I would have fallen for it as well, if that makes you feel any better.

That and some beer might.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 13

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:17:29 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 6047
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online

Hindsight is a great teacher. I often spend some PPs to save some of my Dutch units to use just in this situation, anti-para assault garrison. They get to a base and get 100% prep with a level 3 fort and it makes it hard for paras to take a base.

If he is using paras to be dropped in an non-base hex to cut off retreat, then that would be gamey, IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 14

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:37:33 AM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Hindsight is a great teacher. I often spend some PPs to save some of my Dutch units to use just in this situation, anti-para assault garrison. They get to a base and get 100% prep with a level 3 fort and it makes it hard for paras to take a base.

If he is using paras to be dropped in an non-base hex to cut off retreat, then that would be gamey, IMO.

quote:

If he is using paras to be dropped in an non-base hex to cut off retreat, then that would be gamey, IMO.

nah it was the town west of perth (i forget the name now)...it wasnt the tactic it was the delivery device. Apparently it's not as big of a deal as I though...so i accept the shot to the groin :P...it's a great teacher as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 15

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 11:21:57 AM

btbw

Posts: 311
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

Why you dont have garrisons in dot/base hexes? Even AV=100 or lesser (with fort and flak) can stop paratroops. Also LCU like regiment in strategic movement mode (parked in big base with anough troops) can help with future defense.

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 16

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 12:10:50 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 1898
Joined: 11/17/2006
From: The Old Line State
Status: offline

Hi,

What you've shown here looks valid but it's what you can't see that can hurt you.
In a number of threads your opponent ( CV2?) has argued the validity of circumventing the PP system by purchasing restricted HQs despite being informed different by Ian and others that the PP system was intended to be used differently..

Here's one but there's a number of others.

Even though this program will never come close to simulating what the warrring powers faced during the conflict I play it for the historical lessons both while playing and reading the forum. Who am I to judge how another plays the game?

That said If he's throwing the book at you you may have to use the same tactics in combating them.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 11/6/2012 12:12:57 PM >

_____________________________

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies" ~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 17

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 3:10:10 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 1358
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline

Well the truth is, it's a game. Anything is doable within the rules that the two players set and the game allows. I play folks that like "historical" games where you can't pull off things like sending out picket ships "to die" simply because they would absorb an attack... but sending them out for radar warning is fair game. So to me a strange or unused tactic is not out of the question, but is subject TO question if totally outside historical reality. For example, using kingfisher aircraft as naval attack is fine, because they have an attack capability. Using aircraft in an unconventional way really does seem ok, as long as it is not outside of the realm of possibility. But if it is used to drop paratroopers into the middle of a country simply to disrupt "supply routes" with NO chance of that unit surviving, I think even for the Japanese player is unrealistic. In your case, it sounds like (but I don't have all the details) the move is ok, but does brush up against the ahistorical. That's fine as long as you don't have a house rule or understanding that such moves can't be done.

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 18

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:07:53 PM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Why you dont have garrisons in dot/base hexes? Even AV=100 or lesser (with fort and flak) can stop paratroops. Also LCU like regiment in strategic movement mode (parked in big base with anough troops) can help with future defense.

After similiar landings a took a look at the map and covered what I considered danger spots with troops. Burma frankly was something I was more worried about the Australia due to the range.

I didn't believe for a minute he would use a patrol plane to make the drops so much of south Australia was uncovered because I thought those areas were well out of paratrooper "range".

My mistake.

_____________________________

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 19

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:10:27 PM

btbw

Posts: 311
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal But if it is used to drop paratroopers into the middle of a country simply to disrupt "supply routes" with NO chance of that unit surviving, I think even for the Japanese player is unrealistic.

May be it new for you but you pronounced one of main target a whole kind of troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 20

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:10:51 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 9057
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

It IS creative. I think it is wrong and gamey but one does have to provide a few points for finding a hole in the system to abuse. This player would never do something like that but...

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 11/6/2012 4:12:32 PM >

_____________________________

Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 21

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:12:14 PM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Hi,

What you've shown here looks valid but it's what you can't see that can hurt you.
In a number of threads your opponent ( CV2?) has argued the validity of circumventing the PP system by purchasing restricted HQs despite being informed different by Ian and others that the PP system was intended to be used differently..

Here's one but there's a number of others.

Even though this program will never come close to simulating what the warrring powers faced during the conflict I play it for the historical lessons both while playing and reading the forum. Who am I to judge how another plays the game?

That said If he's throwing the book at you you may have to use the same tactics in combating them.

Yeah, the whole goose and gander. I recognize I "can" do these things as well. I just have long avoided doing them due to the gamey nature. I have always had a disdain for tons of house rules because of the whole "if I wanted to be historical I would read a book" arguement. But I am now learning why guys are so lawyer like in their setting up of house rules. I'm pretty open with my games, to me if Im doing something that annoys you (you find gamey) let me know and I will adjust my tactics. I lose at this game all the time, I play for the fun (lord knows I lose plenty

). I don't play so I can find things in the game to take away from the appeal of bouncing around the pacific and breaking the other guys stuff.

_____________________________

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 22

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:18:52 PM

btbw

Posts: 311
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

After similiar landings a took a look at the map and covered what I considered danger spots with troops. Burma frankly was something I was more worried about the Australia due to the range.

I didn't believe for a minute he would use a patrol plane to make the drops so much of south Australia was uncovered because I thought those areas were well out of paratrooper "range".

My mistake.

I have next HR against very deep invasions:
Invasion can happen in a range of LBA (EXTENDED for AF4+ jap and AF6 FOR allies, or normal for base below) or in a range of CVTF with 40+ a/c.
It help with building defense border.

< Message edited by btbw -- 11/6/2012 4:19:17 PM >

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 23

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:20:27 PM

rroberson

Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Well the truth is, it's a game. Anything is doable within the rules that the two players set and the game allows. I play folks that like "historical" games where you can't pull off things like sending out picket ships "to die" simply because they would absorb an attack... but sending them out for radar warning is fair game. So to me a strange or unused tactic is not out of the question, but is subject TO question if totally outside historical reality. For example, using kingfisher aircraft as naval attack is fine, because they have an attack capability. Using aircraft in an unconventional way really does seem ok, as long as it is not outside of the realm of possibility. But if it is used to drop paratroopers into the middle of a country simply to disrupt "supply routes" with NO chance of that unit surviving, I think even for the Japanese player is unrealistic. In your case, it sounds like (but I don't have all the details) the move is ok, but does brush up against the ahistorical. That's fine as long as you don't have a house rule or understanding that such moves can't be done.

I think "intent" is important. The best example I have is about 5 years ago I was playing someone (he was the allies) who made a bunch of landings near Japan in mid 42. He had no intention of supporting those troops they were to die on the vine as it were. His only intent was to annoy me and force me to divert my forces to kill them (thus slowing down my advance). Now was it a valid "game" tactic. Sure. But it was damn gamey too and very unrealistic. If his goal is to use these paratroopers to pin my forces and relieve them with foot soldiers..then I can smile and take the beating. If they are their to die on the vine ...your miles might vary. Either way, the use of his "patrol" craft to cart these fellas around the map opens up one hell of a lot of bad possible issues and its these kind of things that I tend to avoid.

What's done is done. You can be sure my next game I will have at least one house rule

_____________________________

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 24

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 4:21:25 PM

btbw

Posts: 311
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

It IS creative. I think it is wrong and gamey but one does have to provide a few points for finding a hole in the system to abuse. This player would never do something like that but...

How much AV have Japs in paratroop units? How much they can drop at once?
Why it big problem?
I think problem on concentration. If Allied chief decide concentrate ASAP troops in one place (which in really was impossible and can be counted as gamey) - then why another trick counted as gamey?
Why Japs cannot use their forces where they want, but Allies can? Let play in game where Brits carriers coming to Pacific ocean in 1944, ok?

< Message edited by btbw -- 11/6/2012 4:25:26 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 25

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 5:16:03 PM

crsutton

Posts: 6190
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Hi,

What you've shown here looks valid but it's what you can't see that can hurt you.
In a number of threads your opponent ( CV2?) has argued the validity of circumventing the PP system by purchasing restricted HQs despite being informed different by Ian and others that the PP system was intended to be used differently..

Here's one but there's a number of others.

Even though this program will never come close to simulating what the warrring powers faced during the conflict I play it for the historical lessons both while playing and reading the forum. Who am I to judge how another plays the game?

That said If he's throwing the book at you you may have to use the same tactics in combating them.

Yeah, the whole goose and gander. I recognize I "can" do these things as well. I just have long avoided doing them due to the gamey nature. I have always had a disdain for tons of house rules because of the whole "if I wanted to be historical I would read a book" arguement. But I am now learning why guys are so lawyer like in their setting up of house rules. I'm pretty open with my games, to me if Im doing something that annoys you (you find gamey) let me know and I will adjust my tactics. I lose at this game all the time, I play for the fun (lord knows I lose plenty ). I don't play so I can find things in the game to take away from the appeal of bouncing around the pacific and breaking the other guys stuff.

Well, it is pretty simple. If your opponent does not want to change his methods, then you are stuck with them if you continue to play the game. That means you are stuck with them for the long haul. You need to adapt to his style and play to counter his style. You have no other choice but to not play up to his game and then lose. I am not faulting him for his style. It is not my own but there is plenty of room for diversity here. Think about what you can do to beat him and focus on that. Have fun.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 26

RE: Mavis L - 11/6/2012 6:36:58 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 1358
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline

Mr. Roberson, your example parallels my thoughts exactly. To me the move of what your opponent did in Japan is the thing I feel crosses the line. With something like that, I would depart the game and thank my opponent profusely for the experience, but then move on to someone who is more in line with my views of the game. Just one game can take well over a year, I'm WAY too old to waste what's left of my gaming time to things I don't feel are part of why I play the game in the first place!

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 27

RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 4:33:56 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 4426
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

...

I didn't believe for a minute he would use a patrol plane to make the drops so much of south Australia was uncovered because I thought those areas were well out of paratrooper "range"...

Just a minor point, but the Mavis L is a transport, not a patrol plane. Your only options with it are transport or train. You can't recon or patrol with it.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rroberson)

Post #: 28

RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 12:08:43 PM

MrBlizzard

Posts: 76
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: online

Hi all, in WII Japan made large use of suicidal missions, 'kamikaze' is a japanese word indeed,
I'm not only referring to famous suicidal air attacks of late war; in many situations suicidal attacks were made, for instance at Corregidor special units walked deliberately through the minefields to open a path for other troops. No other army would have done the same so widely.
So, if the target is very valuable, a Japanese unit can be sacrificed, to me isn't gamey. But this should be a real sacrifice and a costly tactitcs.
I mean you should use the whole unit, not just a fragment; using a small fragment is very gamey to me, you can't believe that a fragment of 10 men can control a town, the countrymen could take their rifles and shoot them easily. Also, if you use fragments you have plenty of them and you can feel free to use them for every target, more or less important, this tactics that costs the supreme sacrifice is less believable for small valuable targets.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 29

RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 12:16:05 PM

Barb

Posts: 1479
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline

Why don't you keep some battalions or even base forces in rear areas covering your back and retreat routes? Shouldn't be that hard. Paras don't have punch big enough to overcome such units.

_____________________________