Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching 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 & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 3:35:37 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Leadership was what I chose, but that's just my best guess.  The only other thing that would make sense might be a high land rating.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 331
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 3:54:04 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18130
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Leadership was what I chose, but that's just my best guess.  The only other thing that would make sense might be a high land rating.

Moreso than 'air'?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 332
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 4:03:25 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I'm thinking so.  I would think the "air" rating was the ability to handle aircraft - thus ground leaders have low air ratings.  I don't think "air" rating translates into skill in using AA guns to shoot at things in the air.  Of course, all of this is my intuition.  I have proven in many ways in my life that I am not a prophet.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 333
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 5:13:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14769
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Admin is also big for recovering morale, disruption, fatigue, and disabled squads.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/15/2013 5:14:29 PM >


_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 334
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 5:55:07 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
2/5/42
 
NoPac:  Unloading is nearly complete at Cold Bay.  All but one transport will depart tonight.  Several more ineffective strikes by Mavises flew today.  John sees what's going on, which suits me now.  SigInt reports a base force on a maru bound for Attu.  The American carriers will steam west, just south of Adak, looking for an opportunity to make more noise.  (I'm thinking this activity may draw a strong reaction from John, but by the time he arrives, my ships will have shifted far to the south, leaving him out of position; I'm especially hopeful that he might commit his carriers up here, thus giving mine an opportunity to secure the sea lanes around Oz.)

SoPac:  Pearl Harbor KB retiring north, just to the east of Luganville.  It's a long way from anywhere important.  QE is far to the east of NZ now.

Oz:  I went ahead and "bought" 27th/B Div. and a tank regiment at LA.  Both are loading on transports for the journey to Melbourne.  The LOC should be clear now that the KB is retiring.  I doubt John will chance a repeat of drilling a dry hole.  CA New Orleans will provide escort just in case armed merchant cruisers are in the eastern Pacific.

DEI:  Bowing to the collective wisdom of the Brain Trust, I replaced Percival at Singapore.  This may be an extravagant use of PP, but I felt good about it afterwards.  A Dutch sub NW of Batavia took a shot at Soryu and missed.  That this branch of the KB is moving towards Cam Ran Bay is good news - it means more time to attend to India and Oz.

China:  It turns out that the stack of enemy units moving on Chengte is more bark than bite.  Eight units, but only one division.  The rest is artillery and an HQ unit.  So that important vector is secure.  John has a single unit at Kweilin besieging the city, but allowed a Chinese unit to come in from behind so the his division is now stuck in place and without a supply line.  He can probably attend to the situation relatively easily, but still.  At the moment the Chinese MLR appears secure.



< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 1/15/2013 5:56:04 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 335
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 8:38:01 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4238
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

I realize it's a big and fun part of the game for other players.


Roger that. I think things like "in a sighting which cast a chill over the sake parties in Tokyo, the P-47 made its first combat appearance today" are highly enjoyable.

But there's something else to be considered. It may come as a shock to AE players, but the game is not 100% free of bugs. "Dissembling" can give the impression that nothing is wrong with the game when there actually is -- or vice versa.

_____________________________

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

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 336
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 9:02:41 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I see what you mean.  John did couch his email in such a way as to say, "Hey, the replay showed one unit shock attacked, but I opened the turn file and none of my units were affected.  It must just be a glitch."

I've never seen anything like that before, so I was skeptical the minute I read his email.  Then, after viewing the replay and looking at the file, I was as sure as I could be that he was trying to mislead.

He was endeavoring to dissemble, but his dissembling wasn't credible. 

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 337
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 9:27:12 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3708
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
So you disassembled his efforts at dissembling?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 338
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 9:44:56 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Rather than paraphrase, here's John's email for the 1/31/42 turn:  "Had a strange thing happen. Had a Shock Attack at Singapore but don’t know WHICH unit. Strange. No change in any of my three ID so guess it was an AI blip." 

Nothing more be said about it, but I thought you guys might prefer the actual message.

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 339
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 11:22:20 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 847
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

So you disassembled his efforts at dissembling?


Ugh! My brain is dissembling just trying to follow this stuff. Just go sink something and make it all better. No wait, I'm a JFB, scratch that!! Go get something sunk, that at least I can understand.

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 340
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/15/2013 11:30:36 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8567
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Rather than paraphrase, here's John's email for the 1/31/42 turn:  "Had a strange thing happen. Had a Shock Attack at Singapore but don’t know WHICH unit. Strange. No change in any of my three ID so guess it was an AI blip." 

Nothing more be said about it, but I thought you guys might prefer the actual message.


From your earlier comment I assume the VP tables showed the tale?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 341
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/16/2013 8:21:01 AM   
Houtje

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/19/2006
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Rather than paraphrase, here's John's email for the 1/31/42 turn:  "Had a strange thing happen. Had a Shock Attack at Singapore but don’t know WHICH unit. Strange. No change in any of my three ID so guess it was an AI blip." 

Nothing more be said about it, but I thought you guys might prefer the actual message.



Thanks, and agree on nothing more to be said about it here: good thing you keep tabs on the VP, though, and sth. you should keep doing, apparently.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 342
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/16/2013 5:00:20 PM   
Schlemiel

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline
I've heard reports of the combat log getting desynchronized in other AARs before, where the combat replay for one player shows things that don't happen in the actual turn update. I'd pin it on something like that before I'd call it dissembling. He'd get a lot more advantage creating uncertainty in you if you saw a shock attack that hadn't actually happened, imo. I just don't see any real advantage for his to dissemble in this situation. You both know you won't launch an attack to die more quickly as Singapore, and he can't know what you've been pondering in regards to Percival. You already knew the status of the three IDs at Singapore, more or less, so I fail to see any real advantage to him in creating a fake message here. That said, you've played him before, so you probably have a better read in that regard.

(in reply to Houtje)
Post #: 343
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/16/2013 10:34:56 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
2/6/42 to 2/8/42
 
NoPac:  On nearing Attu Island, the American carrier TFs found a nest of enemy subs.  There was one ASW action between one sub and some DDs.  John may have picked up sufficient intel to deduce my carriers are there (or strongly suspect so).  The carriers have retired ESE to cover the new landings at Akutan.  Tonight, a bombardment force including BBs Idaho and Warspite will visit Umnak Island.  These things, augmented by new recon flights over Adak, should have John's full and complete attention.  I'm hoping that it will arouse his desire to intervene. 

Pacific:   As soon as the landings at Akutan are finished (two or three days), the American carriers will vamose to San Fran, refuel, and then make for Tahiti.  The plan is for the carriers to be in a position to lend a hand with reinforcement convoys bound to either India or Oz, if either is threatened in a big way, or to move on large enemy invasion fleets (assuming that the Pearl Harbor Branch of the KB is confirmed far away - someplace sexy like Alaska).  QE will refueld just north of Tahiti tonight and should be in Los Angeles in about five days.

New Guinea:  John has marched a unit across the Owen Stanley Mountains to Port Moresby.  I'll find out via bombardment how strong it is.  This is one of my high personal pet peeves (as articulated at length in GreyJoy's game vs. Rader).  The game permits it; therefore there is nothing wrong with it; it's just my own personal "have you no shame?" feelings.

DEI:  IJA 22nd Div. invaded and took Makassar a few days ago.  Now, 22/C Div. is invading Kendari.  That's yet another division misallocated (IMO).  If John is frustrated by the events at Clark Field and Singapore, he need only look at his recent uses of 56th and 22nd divisions.

China:  John is gathering for a push at Changsha, Hengyang, or the city in between (Siangtan?).  My MLR in this vicinity is not strong enough to lend confidence at all points.  I'm shifting and attending as best I can.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 1/16/2013 10:36:08 PM >

(in reply to Schlemiel)
Post #: 344
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 2:34:58 PM   
Crackaces


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

John has marched a unit across the Owen Stanley Mountains to Port Moresby. I'll find out via bombardment how strong it is. This is one of my high personal pet peeves (as articulated at length in GreyJoy's game vs. Rader). The game permits it; therefore there is nothing wrong with it; it's just my own personal "have you no shame?" feelings.


If such moves were a backbreaker in your affair: Read John vs. Nemo in a PBEM Gettysburg contest. A flaw in the game is stacking limits. As things start to go Nemo's way John starts stacking units to an unbelievable level gaining what seemed to be a melee advantage toward the end gaol of winning. Nemo follows suit and takes a great advatage overall . game ends as "borked" ...

I do think that is one huge premise before starting WitP AE in particular is to ask the question, "Are we going to assemble a bunch of home rules to delude ourselves that this game is a similation", or do we need to make up a list of home rules to make the game more playable? I might suggest that with each home rule it introduces its own "gameyness." The other game expierence is like the the game The Moose is playing ... play the game as desgined with all its faults as a game. I beleive the former starts to break down with the air module detacting raids at the target rather than at the very least first base crossed [forget circles of apollonius], the naval model has a problem with BB's shooting big guns at small targets, and the ground model has a problem with small fragements of support troops exerting the same influence in a hex as a full strength Corps. Just three pretty major constraints to a similation IMHO besides many other nits.

That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions. Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Just as a note, I am now convinced that an all out attack in Burma using US forces has such an effect in this game. Although it very possible in the game -- it upsets game flow so much that it ruins game balance and the experince overall. I am not sure the Owen Stanely Mountain thing falls in that category


_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 345
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 3:53:11 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18130
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
If John is frustrated by the events at Clark Field and Singapore, he need only look at his recent uses of 56th and 22nd divisions.


Yup. Why he's got IJA IDs climbing the Owen Stanleys whilest allowing these bastions to fester behind the lines is beyond me.

How's your supply situation at Clark?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 346
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 4:00:04 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18130
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.


Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.

quote:


Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.


Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.

_____________________________


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 347
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 5:08:12 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
In discussing these issues, I hope I am not giving the appearance that I am disenchanted with John.  Not at all!  John is a friend and somebody I really enjoy playing.  I am glad that's his focus is on winning the game, because that makes it more fun on my end.

During the ebb and flow of games, issues arise that register on a player's "Richter Scale."  I am perhaps too free in mentioning those.  I do so because they interest me, and may interest you guys, but I try to qualify in noting that I am expressing my own personal viewpoints and not assigning them to my opponent.

That's just the case with things like the "dissembling" about Imperial Guards and marching overland to Port Moresby.  I choose not to do them, but I do not impose my own private speed bumps on my opponents.

If I get really irritated, I'll either figure out a way to get revenge (within reason) or I'll bring it to my opponent for discussion.  As an example of the former, in my first AE match against Miller, he destroyed the Chinese army.  I was mortified, so I decided that in the end the Chinese would get revenge (they did, with the help of the Western Allies, in late 1944).

And the flip side is true.  My opponents have had legitimate concerns about things that I've done, which we've dealt with in the past.  My free use of picket ships being one example.

I'm really enjoying the game against John right now.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 1/17/2013 5:10:09 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 348
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 5:37:16 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
2/9/42
 
NoPac:  I really like the "feel" of things up here.  The landings at Akutan are going smoothly, Allied recon flew over Umnak, and IJ Mavis patrol aircraft caught wind of my carriers and also raided the transports at Akutan.  Tomorrow, Idaho and Warspite bombard Umnak.  I think there's a decent chance John will send his carriers up here to restore order.  If he does so, that's the equivalent of a decisive victory in battle, because without the carriers John can't impose his will on either Oz or India.  (If John doesn't react as hoped, the Allies can take comfort in occupying two forward islands that can be built large; this will be useful later in the game.)

Pacific:  Things are temporarily quiet.  The main event is QE steaming north towards Los Angeles.

Oz:  Quiet here at the moment.  Up at Port Morebsy, 144th IJA Regiment arrived with more units on the way.  Shame on John! 

DEI:  56th Div., which recently landed at Makassar, is now invading Java's east coast.  The Allies defenses in Java are incredibly weak, since I drew off a number of units to occupy Cocos and Christmas Islands, so seeing IJ divisions come here rather than go to Singers or Clark (or elsewhere) is a small victory.  Singers is down to about 28k supply.  Of note, the AA units have exacted an important toll on the daily enemy air raids for well over a month now.

Philippines:  Clark is down to 25k supply, but John is giving this base little attention.  It may hold out as long as Singers if John doesn't reinforce.  Remember when John waxed ecstatic when Manila fell early?  He's not waxing over Clark. 

India:  18th UK Div. at Diego is up to 200 AV (having started at 140 AV about a month ago).

Burma:  The IJA presence in Burma is very small.  The Allies have been slowly retiring with the intention of not having the small units cut off by an invasion of Chittagong.  I want to use the troops to garrison the small bases in NE India.  So Burma is a backwater at present.

China:  An advance Chinese unit reports a stack moving toward Kweilin or Liuchow.  I don't have much in this area at the moment, so I need more information to determine if I have enough to hold.  One of John's demoralized armies NE of Changsha tried a deliberate attack in a forested hex and miserably failed (about the eighth failure for this particular group of units).


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 349
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 6:29:40 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2539
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.


Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.

quote:


Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.


Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.

Historically the Australians did first defend along the Kokoda track and later pushed on to Buna, so there was some ability to move there. But from old movies I have seen of men hanging on to ropes to climb 50º slopes covered in slippery mud, no vehicles or artillery beyond mortars could make the traverse. Even mules had trouble bringing forward supplies.

The game is not meant to be strictly historical, but if one wants to adhere to the spirit of the thing only units without vehicles and artillery should make the traverse, and the rate of movement should be slowed by using Combat/movement or Rest/movement. If the spirit of historical difficulties is not a consideration, the fact that the tunnel works both ways is a balance of sorts.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 350
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 6:45:41 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18130
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Philippines:  Clark is down to 25k supply, but John is giving this base little attention.  It may hold out as long as Singers if John doesn't reinforce.  Remember when John waxed ecstatic when Manila fell early?  He's not waxing over Clark. 


Assume that you're still digging at both Clark and Bataan? What are forts like in both these locations?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 351
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 7:07:50 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The airfields at Bataan and Clark are trashed.  Forts are zero at Clark.  Supply is zero at Bataan.  So the fort situation is unlikely to change before these two bases are extinquished.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 352
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 7:15:11 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4009
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I am late to the game.. but, did you not cram as much supply as you could into Bataan and build forts from day one?

If you did, and the situation is entirely different than what normally happens there, tell me to kindly leave.



_____________________________

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 Canoerebel)
Post #: 353
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 7:15:58 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6216
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
stacking limits are the solution for the Kodoka trail issue and for Burma too

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 354
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 7:59:05 PM   
Crackaces


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

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.


Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.


If the subject is presenting with an historical problem and the game senses no differences between an armored division and a light infantry support company -- then I suggested to provide the historical problem of an amphibious attack vs. marching overland using a black and white home rule. I was not exploring that unit 'X' can and unit 'Y; cannot. As it is in the game .. it is quite possible .. I would contend even with stacking limits ...to cross the Owen Stanelys and successfully undo PM completly avoiding the question of an amphib invasion post amphib bonus .. such was my point. I am thinking that CR feels a better game with that historical choice without having to delve into the details you suggest. But I would also contend that you bring up a good point in that details like this are imporant to a set of players and should be disscussed in detail before enaging in this very long affair. I pulled off Operation Capital 2 years ealier than my opponent felt possible historically, and the led to a lot of unhappiness on both sides. This game goes on too long with players being unhappy and not enjoying the journey ... IMHO ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 355
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 8:04:35 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7000
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.


Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.

quote:


Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.


Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.

Historically the Australians did first defend along the Kokoda track and later pushed on to Buna, so there was some ability to move there. But from old movies I have seen of men hanging on to ropes to climb 50º slopes covered in slippery mud, no vehicles or artillery beyond mortars could make the traverse. Even mules had trouble bringing forward supplies.

The game is not meant to be strictly historical, but if one wants to adhere to the spirit of the thing only units without vehicles and artillery should make the traverse, and the rate of movement should be slowed by using Combat/movement or Rest/movement. If the spirit of historical difficulties is not a consideration, the fact that the tunnel works both ways is a balance of sorts.


Because it works in game it's tough to limit. My game with Jockmeister is a perfect example right now. I was forced out of Port Moresby after a long siege and several Japanese units retreated to the hex representing the pass to Buna. They had motorized support, large artillery, DP, and AA guns, radar, the works. This is in December, so the beginning of the rainy season, or what could be considered the monsoon.

I had the option to move SE to Milne Bay, but that would undoubtedly have led to several units starving and I'm not sure that journey through rugged tropical jungles would have been any easier for the equipment in tow.

Once I reached Buna I noticed the Allies starting to march. They also went right over the Owen Stanleys, and several units did not even use the 'track' hex. I'm still not sure what they are, but i would put money down that it's at least two if not three divisions.

So is that okay? What is okay?

A house rule would not stop the forces retreating to a position on the mountains, but it would prevent intentional crossings.

< Message edited by obvert -- 1/17/2013 8:07:57 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 356
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 8:21:43 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18130
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.


Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.

quote:


Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.


Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.

Historically the Australians did first defend along the Kokoda track and later pushed on to Buna, so there was some ability to move there. But from old movies I have seen of men hanging on to ropes to climb 50º slopes covered in slippery mud, no vehicles or artillery beyond mortars could make the traverse. Even mules had trouble bringing forward supplies.

The game is not meant to be strictly historical, but if one wants to adhere to the spirit of the thing only units without vehicles and artillery should make the traverse, and the rate of movement should be slowed by using Combat/movement or Rest/movement. If the spirit of historical difficulties is not a consideration, the fact that the tunnel works both ways is a balance of sorts.


Because it works in game it's tough to limit. My game with Jockmeister is a perfect example right now. I was forced out of Port Moresby after a long siege and several Japanese units retreated to the hex representing the pass to Buna. They had motorized support, large artillery, DP, and AA guns, radar, the works. This is in December, so the beginning of the rainy season, or what could be considered the monsoon.

I had the option to move SE to Milne Bay, but that would undoubtedly have led to several units starving and I'm not sure that journey through rugged tropical jungles would have been any easier for the equipment in tow.

Once I reached Buna I noticed the Allies starting to march. They also went right over the Owen Stanleys, and several units did not even use the 'track' hex. I'm still not sure what they are, but i would put money down that it's at least two if not three divisions.

So is that okay? What is okay?

A house rule would not stop the forces retreating to a position on the mountains, but it would prevent intentional crossings.


obvert-that sort of sensible approach is what I strive for in my games. Usually (I've been blessed with partners) we see eye-to-eye on this.

The execution of the P/NG campaign is one that I've had problems with in the past. Granted, that was under (several) different patches and a much earlier start.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 357
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 8:40:44 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2539
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Agreed - you can't do anything about the retreating troops since you have no control of the direction of initial retreat.
The game does favour a retreating force - foot soldiers running from tanks on shock attack make it into the next hex, leaving the tanks 46 miles behind them - that's some great marathon they ran. Most annoying is how guns are saved by the retreating unit even when there are no squads left in the unit and no vehicles to tow them.
Anyhoo ... the stacking limit idea would certainly impose some penalty on movement whether the unit is retreated into the hex or moving on assault. No easy answer that will satisfy all the possiblilites other than both sides using the Owen Stanley tunnel as they see fit.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 358
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 10:40:34 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8567
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
This is a funny topic.

The OS Mountians aren't special; they just have more photos. They were very, very hard to walk across. Stipulated. Lots of nice pictures of how hard it was. They had good PR agents. But if someone wants to make a deal of this in the game, if they're honest, they also never, ever let tanks or arty or AA units move through jungle except on gray or yellow roads. Never fight off road, never cross the jungle. OK, maybe, just maybe, if they have a combat engineer unit with them in the hex at all times. Not an engineer unit mind you, but realio trulio combat engineers laying corduroy roads. How many miles of corduroy road can a good combat engineer unit lay in a day? Three miles? When it's not monsoon?

I prefer the Japanese come over the OS Mountians. You can see them coming for a long time.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/17/2013 10:42:43 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 359
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 1/17/2013 11:23:28 PM   
JeffK


Posts: 5173
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

John has marched a unit across the Owen Stanley Mountains to Port Moresby. I'll find out via bombardment how strong it is. This is one of my high personal pet peeves (as articulated at length in GreyJoy's game vs. Rader). The game permits it; therefore there is nothing wrong with it; it's just my own personal "have you no shame?" feelings.


If such moves were a backbreaker in your affair: Read John vs. Nemo in a PBEM Gettysburg contest. A flaw in the game is stacking limits. As things start to go Nemo's way John starts stacking units to an unbelievable level gaining what seemed to be a melee advantage toward the end gaol of winning. Nemo follows suit and takes a great advatage overall . game ends as "borked" ...

I do think that is one huge premise before starting WitP AE in particular is to ask the question, "Are we going to assemble a bunch of home rules to delude ourselves that this game is a similation", or do we need to make up a list of home rules to make the game more playable? I might suggest that with each home rule it introduces its own "gameyness." The other game expierence is like the the game The Moose is playing ... play the game as desgined with all its faults as a game. I beleive the former starts to break down with the air module detacting raids at the target rather than at the very least first base crossed [forget circles of apollonius], the naval model has a problem with BB's shooting big guns at small targets, and the ground model has a problem with small fragements of support troops exerting the same influence in a hex as a full strength Corps. Just three pretty major constraints to a similation IMHO besides many other nits.

That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions. Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Just as a note, I am now convinced that an all out attack in Burma using US forces has such an effect in this game. Although it very possible in the game -- it upsets game flow so much that it ruins game balance and the experince overall. I am not sure the Owen Stanely Mountain thing falls in that category


Whats the problem with marching a Division across the Owen Stanleys, my only comment is that it has to be in COMBAT status, not MOVE.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

0.113