Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42

 
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 >> RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 6:23:13 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

After reading this thread, I am confused about where the mini KB was during the allied rush to fortify Sumatra? That and the land based air should have sunk a number of transports. Am I wrong about this?



Mimi-KB was blasted during the invasion of Java. 1 was sunk east of Batavia, 2 were sunk SW of Java by allied CVs while attempting to interdict fleeing allied ships.

I also lost 2 fleet carriers trying to interdict ships leaving Oosthaven a couple of months later. I retrospect I should have brought all of KB to bear.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 11/9/2011 6:24:09 AM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 91
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 8:03:29 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14027
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

quote:


FatR said:

"Not really. Both Singapore and most of the Philippines can be easily bypassed and isolated. In my opinion, the key to Japanese success in the initial phase is speed and preventing the Allies from reinforcing or consolidating their defenses by securing key bases very early. You have only a few weeks of total Allied weakness in the air, so they need to be used to the fullest."



This is easily the defining difference between a gamer and a simulator. A gamer will look at your statement and say, "Yeah, absolutely, that's what you have to do to win." A simulator looks at your statement and thinks, "What? Are you crazy? That would never work IRL!"

Chez


I guess the problem is we would never know what would have happened IRL if the Allies had 'played' the war differently. This is the problem with the idea of simulation as you state it. The Japanese might have come up with all kinds of daringly innovative means of acquiring the resources they were desperate to have if the Allies had reinforced Palembang or some other critical point. They actually did for the most part by-pass the PI. The Dutch airforce is pitiful and not worthy of concern until the Hurricanes show up, so most arguments about why one couldn't take and hold Sumatra early, even IRL, don't hold water. Palembang itself makes a fine defensive airfield. The japanese in the war didn't seem nearly as concerned with protecting their forces and limiting casualties as you are either, witnessed by the Malaya campaign in particular. Scenario 2 is also completely outside the possibilities of the Japanese IRL at the time, mostly based on political and economic conditions. It is completely based on saying 'what if' these conditions had not existed? But it does make for a better game!

We simply don't know 'what would have or would not have worked IRL' because only one course can be taken, but that is exactly why this game is fun. Games are about innovative and creative problem solving. The Japanese probably played through many of these courses before deciding on the strategy they took to conquer the SRA. They most likely had contingencies set up for other possible Allied reactions. We get to have contingencies for what our opponents decide to do in the game. We all seem to have some limitations as well based on what might have been possible, and have a code of ethics that lets us stay within the grounds of what is fair to our opponent. By all means the game can be used for all kinds of different ends and played in numerous different styles. I just think these things need to be very clearly stated before the game begins to make sure opponents are on the same page more or less, and can deal with the places where they are not.

Your game has been fun not only for you and for CR but for the rest of us to watch in his AAR. I just wish we had had your side of the story throughout so we could have understood many of the reasons you were making the moves you did. That said, having started an AAR myself, I know it takes a LOT of time.

I hope in future you play an opponent who wants to simulate and we get to read what this would look like. I may yet be convinced that the game could accomodate this kind of limitation. It would be a fun read anyway.

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/9/2011 8:32:51 AM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 92
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 3:32:39 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Actually, Chez does play an opponent who is more into "simulation" (or, as I put it, "prosecuting a war" as opposed to "playing a game"), but neither of us have the time to write an AAR.

We started several years ago with CHS and played that one until August 1944 when a massive alien abduction of a third of our pilots occurred. We are now into May 1943 in our AE game. His aircraft had slaughtered the Malaya air force in our game, and so he was able to dominate the skies around Singapore. I thought about bringing the UK 18th Division into Sumatra, but decided against it since I couldn't guarantee that they would make it through the air attacks. In our CHS game the Dutch engineers laid waste to the Palembang oil fields (I had concentrated all the eastern Sumatran forces at Palembang), in this game the same troops barely scratched them.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 93
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 4:28:00 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
One thing against Chez is that he is playing with PDU off. I would rather play Scn 1 with this on than Scn 2 with it off.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 94
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 6:30:09 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ahh, I missed the part about the carrier aircraft. I still think it's doable with land based air. The 23 Air Flotilla has 126 fighters, including the crack Tainan daitai, along with 54 Betties. That's more fighters than KB can muster. I'm convinced that the Japanese have the appropriate tools early in the war to counter anything the Allies can dream up.



And when you consider the absoutely pitiful replacement rate for Allied carrier aircraft early in the war, then a good Japanese player should be able to exploit this as well.

Fortress Palembang will work a few times vs new or unexpecting Japanese players but any alert Japanese player can and should deal with it pretty easily.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 95
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 6:36:57 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6176
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Festung Palembang is not a war winning exercise in itself for either side. Like everything else in this game, this particular ploy benefits the stronger player, be they in control of the Allied or Japanese forces.

Alfred

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 96
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 6:50:25 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

One point to make here about the game mechanics. The Japanese player gets a mega-move for certain preordained TFs on the first turn. Mess with the destinations of those TFs and they revert to normal speed. No mega-move allowed. Good luck getting to Sumatra now before the allies reinforce.



Are you sure about this? I have changed destinations for the * TFs and they move at the advanced rate just fine. Is this some recent change in one of the unofficial patches?

The only thing that I've noticed that messes with the * TF bonus movement is moving planes to or from ships. Once, I tried to add some more planes to KB prior to sending them off to Pearl and they only traveled four hexes, barely getting out of home waters. Needless to say, I had to start the whole turn over! A solid month of 6+ hrs per day down the tubes!

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 97
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 7:36:25 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
I agree with Icedawg here.
I have numerous plans with bonus move transports having altered plans.
Rarely are any of the bonus move transports untouched whether it be a adding/removing loaded ships, their destinations or both, also if you change a bonus move TF to another type say surface combat to amphibious you'll still get a bonus move and it's a good way to get extra transports down to the Palaus to help with pace of action.

_____________________________


(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 98
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 7:41:46 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Same here. Identical to what SuluSea wrote.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 99
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/9/2011 7:47:18 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I agree with Icedawg here.
I have numerous plans with bonus move transports having altered plans.
Rarely are any of the bonus move transports untouched whether it be a adding/removing loaded ships, their destinations or both, also if you change a bonus move TF to another type say surface combat to amphibious you'll still get a bonus move and it's a good way to get extra transports down to the Palaus to help with pace of action.


I do the same thing with the transports. I use the small DD TFs in Japan. I turn them into amphibious TFs full of xAKs and send them off to Babeldoab.


(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 100
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/10/2011 4:39:07 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

One point to make here about the game mechanics. The Japanese player gets a mega-move for certain preordained TFs on the first turn. Mess with the destinations of those TFs and they revert to normal speed. No mega-move allowed. Good luck getting to Sumatra now before the allies reinforce.



Are you sure about this? I have changed destinations for the * TFs and they move at the advanced rate just fine. Is this some recent change in one of the unofficial patches?

The only thing that I've noticed that messes with the * TF bonus movement is moving planes to or from ships. Once, I tried to add some more planes to KB prior to sending them off to Pearl and they only traveled four hexes, barely getting out of home waters. Needless to say, I had to start the whole turn over! A solid month of 6+ hrs per day down the tubes!


I'm recalling this from the opening moves of this game and my game with Brad. I changed the destination of several TFs headed for the PI and Malaya and they sailed at normal rate instead of the advanced rate.

It may be that some TFs do and some do not if you change things on them. Maybe the (*) means don't mess with these TFs. I don't know.

Chez


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 101
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/10/2011 9:29:35 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6337
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
I think if you create new TF, and maybe if you split a TF, you lose the bonus.

I have redirected *TF and it works, I set up new ones and they are at snail mail pace.


Mentioned above, there are counters to Festung Palembang, but there will be a Festung Batavia/Rabaul/Rangoon etc.

Its like Chess, gambit is countered so another gambit is played.

Both players have to be wise enough to pick up what is played and work out their counters, blindly following your plans can get you into troiuble


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 102
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/10/2011 9:38:29 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think if you create new TF, and maybe if you split a TF, you lose the bonus.

I have redirected *TF and it works, I set up new ones and they are at snail mail pace.


Mentioned above, there are counters to Festung Palembang, but there will be a Festung Batavia/Rabaul/Rangoon etc.

Its like Chess, gambit is countered so another gambit is played.

Both players have to be wise enough to pick up what is played and work out their counters, blindly following your plans can get you into troiuble




I agree. Hence in my original statement i didn't say the Palembang "gambit" isn't insurmountable....but that in order to counter it the tactic involved is equally a "gambit"

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 103
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/10/2011 10:26:32 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think if you create new TF, and maybe if you split a TF, you lose the bonus.





From my tests if you have a TF with an asterisk you can change every ship and load it with new vessels and you'll still get the movement bonus.

I suggest opening up the Japanese side and let the creative mind run wild, there's much you can do to put the emperors forces in a better position to block vessels from escaping and also protect the invasion shipping. Any TF with a movement bonus needs to be used to the players advantage, that said I can't say I'm a player that would seek to make deep incursions using the bonus move and only use them to attack on the defensive perimeter as I see it even if it's one CA from TF 5 moving to another position to give added punch.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 11/10/2011 10:35:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 104
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.145