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: Notes from a Small Island

 
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: Notes from a Small Island Page: <<   < prev  152 153 [154] 155 156   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 11:30:40 AM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
I check your AAR every day, Thanks!

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 4591
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 12:04:22 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7488
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

I’m curious to see how the F-80s and sweeping Tokyo goes. Hope the game doesn’t end before that. It’s rare to get a game that goes this far so that particular data point is hard to come by.


Albiet, my experience was against the inept AI, but I found P80s to be incomparable and unstoppable.

I found the KI-95 to be the toughest opponent, by far.
It outperformed all of the exotic Japanese jets and rocket planes.

P80s cleared everything from the skies.

They weren't invulnerable, and a few got shot down, but the ratio was typically 5-1 and often as high as 10-1.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 4592
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 12:51:54 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The P-80s have been sweeping regularly and perform as Hans says - usually very favorable ratios, dampened a bit by ops losses.

I have two groups - one in Korea nibbling around Osaka, which is just out of range, and one at Wakkanai that targets any enemy fighter concentrations located in northern Honshu. But now that Sapporo has fallen, Tokyo is in range. All P-80s will move to Sapporo tomorrow and then rest a day or two before their first big mission. I'll probably cherry pick the best P-51H squadrons and do the same thing.

By the way, there's something funky with the carrier fighter routine. It underperforms in the sweep role against big enemy LBA. If I send 50 P-51Hs against Kobe, the losses for both sides will be the same for 600 carrier F4U-1Ds or Bearcats or whatever. The combat doesn't last long and then the carrier fighters disengage. That's always happened, for the past year. So instead of DS being a monster, it's pretty weak.

What I may do is strip some of the fighter squadrons from the carriers and use them from land. The problem up to now has been airfield proximity. The range of the F4U-4 and the Bearcat are less than the -1D and 1A.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 4593
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 1:02:54 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
2/1/46

Shooting Stars: The P-80s from Wakkanai swept Akita, where Erik had about 135 fighters posted. The P-80s did pretty well - 24:4 ratio, though ops losses dampened that a good bit. But that opening round (2:1) was atypically poor for the Shooting Stars. I think the pilot quality of these squadrons is a bit lower than for the squadrons based out of Korea.

Using the P-80s at range 11 (their max) may also dampen results due to ops losses.

Overall, these planes are impressive in the sweep role.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4594
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 2:36:46 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The impact of the HRs in China may have been dramatic as those that applied to the air war. When I stepped in, March 1, 1944, the entire Chinese army was in Karachi. This was against the HR that Obvert had with my predecessors. So I moved the Chinese, en masse back into the Chinese Himalayas. That way the HR would be honored. But that meant the Chinese units couldn’t upgrade and didn’t have the supply needed to draw reinforcements. Deep into 1945, the Chinese army still mostly had 1941 squads. The units were weak and lacked supply. They faced the highly-experienced Japanese units who had conquered China. Those units were strong, supplied and dug in (Erik once noted that many of his units had as many as six forts - and that in 3x terrain!). And his HRs also prohibited the Allies from engaging in Strategic bombing in China. So there was no way to shut down supply production.

Taken together, those conditions meant that the only hope to liberate China was to commit the Western Allies and/or Russians – marching without benefit of rail all the way to Chungking and Chengtu to accomplish that goal. That was important, because there are so many high value, big denominator bases in China. Chungking and Chengtu are worth 5,400 points for Japan (the equivalent of 10,800 for the Allies – which is like conquering all of Kyushu and a goodly part of Honshu). Kunming, Tuyung, Lanchow, Hong Kong and also have big denominators, and I’m sure there were other bases too.

The need to conquer China, combined with the state of the air war in August/September 1945, made the choice pretty obvious, to me. The HR against night bombing of airfields and the severely limited Allied fighter and bomber pools made it risky to engage in any protracted air battle over the Home Islands, such as would take place with an all-out invasion. And Erik still had supply, deep pools, advanced frames, excellent pilots, flak, and a well-dug-in army. I'd already engaged in one risky, toughly contested battle in the Home Islands (Sikhalin Island). Erik earned a ton of permanent points that way, fighting efficiently at 1:1 ratios. I sure didn't want him to be able to do that again.

I agree with BBfanboy that a player like Nemo, and certainly some others I can think of, would have girded up their loins and attacked Japan proper. I’m confident Nemo would have prevailed. I think some others would have too. But many would’ve skewered themselves on a hardened target, having not properly known and considered the myriad factors that should have gone into making such a decision, and thereby giving Obvert (an excellent, experienced, aggressive player) a chance to strike hard and effectively.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4595
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 2:49:47 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The victory conditions also entered into the equation. If the Allies don't prevail by 8/31/45, the best they can achieve is a marginal victory. And the conditions to achieve a marginal victory are the same whether 2:1 is achieved on 9/2/45 or 3/30/46. Since victory by 9/1/45 clearly wasn't possible, there was no need to take inadvisable chances thereafter. It meant just as much to achieve 2:1 in early 1946 as it did in late 1945.

There's no question that Erik and I are playing this as a game, as defined by the rules, as opposed to a simulation. The Allies invaded the Home Islands in June 1944. Since then, Erik has triggered exactly one kamikaze attack (near Shanghai in June, I think, 1945). He's played carefully and conservatively to maximize his points and minimize mine. He's playing exactly how I think the game should be played, and he's done a great job. And I'm doing the same - playing the game as a game.

If the game is measured by reality rather than as a game, the Allies had conquered more than they had historically by early August 1945. So by that measure, too, the Allies did well. But I don't think that's a valid measure.

All things considered, I think the game has been a draw, at least since I entered. Both sides fought hard and well, using carefully crafted strategies, and both making only a few mistakes (as best I can tell). The victory conditions will call this an marginal Allied victory, but those conditions were created many years ago and undoubtedly without a lot of hard info as to what the possibilities were. Draw accurately reflects the actual outcome, IMO.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/13/2020 2:54:50 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4596
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 2:59:04 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Well, by killing off all of those pixelated Japanese soldiers, the pixelated Allied occupation troops will have lots of pixelated Japanese young ladies around with not enough pixelated Japanese men to comfort them on the lonely nights . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4597
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 3:03:59 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16921
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Well, by killing off all of those pixelated Japanese soldiers, the pixelated Allied occupation troops will have lots of pixelated Japanese young ladies around with not enough pixelated Japanese men to comfort them on the lonely nights . . .

And the pixelated Allied Governments did not want pixelated Allied soldiers bringing home oriental ladies or babies ....

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4598
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 3:09:58 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
But this is Pixel Land. We are all entitled to as many Pixies as we can handle.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/13/2020 3:10:08 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 4599
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 8:11:09 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for your thoughts, MindMessing.

There was a time when I had to make that call - invade Japan or concentrate on China. It's possible the former would have driven the Allies to a quicker victory, but I didn't think so. I didn't think so then or now.


The former would have. Take the total VP swing from China versus that of Japan. One will be bigger than the other.

quote:

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4550630

quote:

I took into consideration many factors that you aren't/weren't privy to. For instance, it is essential that the Allies conquer most of China - especially big denominator bases like Chengtu and Chungking. That's more than 5,000 denominator points right there. But given the house rules and the cards I was dealt, China couldn't be reconquered without a full commitment by the Russians and/or Western Allies. The House Rules had a material impact on that, and I doubt you have any notion of those rules or how they impacted the game.


Why was it essential to recapture China?

Every Japanese unit in China was one that was not defending Japan.

Outside of Chengtu, Chungking and Shanghai, base VP's are low compared to Japan proper. They're also much denser, and with terrain generally favourable to the Allies (lots of clear terrain, almost exclusively coastal hexes to allow naval bombardment from the Allied fleet) compared to China.

I'd also point out that the Allied naval arm can contribute extremely little to influence events in China, compared to Japan. Naval bombardment of coastal hexes could have easily helped contribute to the Allied VP pool.

quote:

And when that tough decision was made, the Allied aircraft pools were drained and without replacements. Starting a massive, no-holds-barred air battle over Japan when I had limited resources and Erik (apparently) didn't seemed fraught with too much risk. It was better to wait until the P-51H came online, finally permitting the Allies to contest the air space over the Home Islands.


In AE, landings are possible without contesting the air space over the Home Islands. The purpose in these events is not to control the air space, but to protect the amphibs.

There's also a point in there about the P-51 not being the only fighter in the Allied line-up...

quote:

There were many other factors that led me to believe the course of action I took was the best option. I might have been wrong. Another player might've done differently and did better than I did. But I'm satisfied with the decision and feel pretty sure that a lot of players would've stepped into it with both shoes had then attacked Erik when he was still fully supplied and had the upper hand in the air war.


It's hard to think clinically about your own game when you are immersed in it. I will be interested to see if your view changes with time.


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for your thoughts, MindMessing.

There was a time when I had to make that call - invade Japan or concentrate on China. It's possible the former would have driven the Allies to a quicker victory, but I didn't think so. I didn't think so then or now.

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.

I took into consideration many factors that you aren't/weren't privy to. For instance, it is essential that the Allies conquer most of China - especially big denominator bases like Chengtu and Chungking. That's more than 5,000 denominator points right there. But given the house rules and the cards I was dealt, China couldn't be reconquered without a full commitment by the Russians and/or Western Allies. The House Rules had a material impact on that, and I doubt you have any notion of those rules or how they impacted the game.

And when that tough decision was made, the Allied aircraft pools were drained and without replacements. Starting a massive, no-holds-barred air battle over Japan when I had limited resources and Erik (apparently) didn't seemed fraught with too much risk. It was better to wait until the P-51H came online, finally permitting the Allies to contest the air space over the Home Islands.

There were many other factors that led me to believe the course of action I took was the best option. I might have been wrong. Another player might've done differently and did better than I did. But I'm satisfied with the decision and feel pretty sure that a lot of players would've stepped into it with both shoes had then attacked Erik when he was still fully supplied and had the upper hand in the air war.

Much of this is a matter of style. Nemo would have sacrificed huge numbers of ships, aircraft and troops to get into the main Japanese cities and wipe out the economy. That probably would still have allowed a winning VP ratio and he might have done in in 1944!
But that's Nemo, he has an edge on figuring out what the opposition is likely to do because he is a Psychological or Psychiatric professional.

I understand CR's approach to things because my own comfort zone for risk is similar. I see no reason to suggest his overall strategy was faulty as he knew he had a very crafty opponent who is very experienced at getting the most out of the Japanese forces and economy. Obvert did score some victories along the way but CR stymied most of his gambits and won on the slow but steady path. Kudos to both sides for the way this has played out - instructive and entertaining all the way through!





Ah, the old "Nemo is a mind reader" myth. Almost as if he was deliberate in cultivating that myth for some reason...?

The overall strategy was faulty as it was not the most effective way to deliver what was needed for victory.

What was needed was large VP swings to the Allies, delivered at speed, using every asset to the greatest benefit.

What was done was a campaign in China that the navy couldn't contribute to, and that allowed a good trade for Japan.

quote:

Deep into 1945, the Chinese army still mostly had 1941 squads. The units were weak and lacked supply. They faced the highly-experienced Japanese units who had conquered China. Those units were strong, supplied and dug in (Erik once noted that many of his units had as many as six forts - and that in 3x terrain!).


Strong units that are well dug in...let's go fight them instead of going somewhere with weaker opposition!

quote:

Chungking and Chengtu are worth 5,400 points for Japan (the equivalent of 10,800 for the Allies – which is like conquering all of Kyushu and a goodly part of Honshu). Kunming, Tuyung, Lanchow, Hong Kong and also have big denominators, and I’m sure there were other bases too.


What's the comparative time to travel between Chungking/Chengtu and Hong Kong?

What's that versus a boat from Wakkanai to Kanoya?

quote:

I'd already engaged in one risky, toughly contested battle in the Home Islands (Sikhalin Island). Erik earned a ton of permanent points that way, fighting efficiently at 1:1 ratios. I sure didn't want him to be able to do that again.


Imagine if you'd made that exchange for a base where you could have mounted an extended land campaign against weak IJ ground opposition to take high value VP bases...like Hokkaido?

quote:

The victory conditions also entered into the equation. If the Allies don't prevail by 8/31/45, the best they can achieve is a marginal victory. And the conditions to achieve a marginal victory are the same whether 2:1 is achieved on 9/2/45 or 3/30/46. Since victory by 9/1/45 clearly wasn't possible, there was no need to take inadvisable chances thereafter. It meant just as much to achieve 2:1 in early 1946 as it did in late 1945.

There's no question that Erik and I are playing this as a game, as defined by the rules, as opposed to a simulation. The Allies invaded the Home Islands in June 1944. Since then, Erik has triggered exactly one kamikaze attack (near Shanghai in June, I think, 1945). He's played carefully and conservatively to maximize his points and minimize mine. He's playing exactly how I think the game should be played, and he's done a great job. And I'm doing the same - playing the game as a game.

If the game is measured by reality rather than as a game, the Allies had conquered more than they had historically by early August 1945. So by that measure, too, the Allies did well. But I don't think that's a valid measure.

All things considered, I think the game has been a draw, at least since I entered. Both sides fought hard and well, using carefully crafted strategies, and both making only a few mistakes (as best I can tell). The victory conditions will call this an marginal Allied victory, but those conditions were created many years ago and undoubtedly without a lot of hard info as to what the possibilities were. Draw accurately reflects the actual outcome, IMO.


Obvert's strategy of conservative play was the right counter - a more aggressive pursuit of VP's from the Allies would have forced Obvert to start rolling the dice in the big Gotterdammerung battles that the late-game throws up to maintain the IJ VP lead.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 2/13/2020 8:14:46 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4600
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 8:59:10 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4601
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 9:16:38 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.


I agree with you with another point, you have to play the game the way that you are comfortable playing. I saw that when you invaded Sumatra in another game and was given advice to jump over to the Malaya peninsula. You did that but weren't comfortable with it and it did not work out for you. At that time, I was not following your AAR but I did later.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4602
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 9:19:05 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're still shooting wide of the mark. Those conversations with Alfred, et al, occurred in 2018, long before the point came when I had to decide between China and the Home Islands. As I noted above, you were the only person chiming in then, as I recall.

As for my opinion, no, it won't change with time. It was the right call for me, given what I knew and suspected. I get it that you don't agree.



quote:

Your memory about the input from the Peanut Gallery is pretty spotty. I remember you chiming in. I'm 99.9% sure that neither Alfred, Bullwinkle or Lokasenna commented in any way. They'd bowed out of the AAR or the community much, much earlier.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Hitching on Loka's post, but to CR.

He knows both sides; I don't. But, in our game, when I left in December 1944 he sent he his save to look at. It's been months, but I recall him having about 1500 Frank -r in the pools. That was on the high side of models, but he had a LOT of fighters. (obvert took over the game, so there's no OPSEC here.) They're SR3, but I was never going to shoot them down. My pools were worse than yours are.

I think you can strat bomb his aircraft industry. You persist, however, in trying daylight pinpoint raids, often without escort. He has massed fighters. The historical Japan did not. You can't do that in the game.

If you Manpower bomb, at night, and with altitudes that remove AA from the equation, I think you CAN hurt his air effort quite a bit. Fire destroys factories. It isn't choosy, so you can't be as precise as in daylight pinpoint, but you don't need to have great pilots to drop incendiaries either. He will have some night fighters, but he can't always guess right, or guess your altitudes. You will lose more B-29s than historical, but it doesn't have to be 40-50 per raid. And even if you burn up something else it's VPs.

You need fires. I'm not talking 20,000. I mean six figures. It can be done.


Bullwinkle has been advocating for a long time here that the Allied focus is misplaced. If the objective is to achieve an Allied Decisive Victory as determined by the game victory conditions, he is correct.

Any Allied player who is dependent on Soviet activation in order to decisively defeat Japan has adopted an approach which guarantees that at the very best they can only achieve a Marginal Victory and even that is most definitely not guaranteed. A Marginal Allied victory is far below the historical performance and nothing to crow about.

Here the Allies have only 6 months to accomplish an Auto Victory, which is the only way to gain a Decisive Victory. Look at the VPs disclosed in post #3168. As of that date even if Japan gained not a single extra VP in the next 6 months,, the Allies need to harvest more than 80k in VPs. That is more than 13k each month. In his last game against John III just how many months did Canoerebel achieve that quantum in a game where the Japanese position and resistance was no where as well placed as it is in this game to stymie Allied plans.

Any lawyer knows what the phrase "time is of the essence" means. It applies here. Only the big VP sources can lead to a Decisive Allied victory. Those sources are Strategic VPs and acquisition of prime Japanese real estate on Honshu. At this stage consistently achieving 2:1 in air kill VPs (due to 4E providing 2 VPs each a better ratio in down airframes is needed in order to get that VP air ratio) will not suffice to bridge the VP gap. Nor will naval battles achieve such a surplus sufficient to bridge the gap. Land victories even at a 4:1 destroyed device ratio are too small to bridge the VP gap.

Alfred


Emphasis mine.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4603
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 9:27:45 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call. I keep saying that. You keep missing it.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/13/2020 9:28:10 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4604
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 9:38:44 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.


All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.


I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4605
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 9:50:42 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16921
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.


All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.


I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4606
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 9:59:42 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.


All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.


I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.



My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 4607
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 10:14:13 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.


All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.


I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.



+1

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 4608
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 10:17:40 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.


All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.


I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.



My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.


He may not be blaming the game, he just may be commenting on the current Japanese situation.

You are making judgements about his decisions, they were not wrong but they were different than what the decisions that you would have made without having all of the information that he had available.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4609
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 11:20:13 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That conversation happened a long, long time before I began weighing options to make that call.


All the more reason for you to have taken the time to have processed what Alfred was trying to tell you.

quote:

I keep saying that. You keep missing it.


I stated that there was discussion around overall strategy that others had contributed to.

You responded that my memory was not correct, that you were almost certain that Alfred, Bullwinkle or Loka commented in any way.

Are you intending to stick to that line, in light of the linked comment above?

There is no right and wrong here - both strategies could have worked. It was CRs game to play out the way he wanted and he did what was most comfortable for him, given his respect for obvert's capabilities. Please stop trying to prove you are right - it is not a competition, just an option of how to play it.



My issue is with CR claiming that Japan was broken, when in fact the circumstances he faced in this game were due to his strategic choices.

It's less about being right and more about critical examination. It's easy to blame the game, it's much harder to actually look at where the wrong turns were on the decision tree.


He may not be blaming the game, he just may be commenting on the current Japanese situation.

You are making judgements about his decisions, they were not wrong but they were different than what the decisions that you would have made without having all of the information that he had available.


Nope. Nice try, but nope.

The Allies were behind on VP's. The Allied focus should have been on strategic bombing, followed by taking bases on Honshu.

The "you don't have all the information to judge" argument is weak and doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny. The only information needed is:

1. The VP situation.
2. Knowledge of the biggest VP piñata on the map (Hint: it starts with an H and ends with a U)

EDIT: This isn't an attempt at a "I told you so"; instead, what could have been done different to effect a more positive outcome for the Allies.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 2/13/2020 11:31:50 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4610
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/13/2020 11:41:39 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.

Not having all of the information to judge is not weak, it is a fact. It does hold up to scrutiny. Any decision made must take into consideration all of the available assets and the counters to them. If there are not enough assets, you won't get the job done. Just ask the Japanese about Guadalcanal and the Germans on the Eastern Front in WWII.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4611
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 12:07:44 AM   
ChuckBerger

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 8/10/2006
Status: offline
mm, dude... you're spending a lot of electrons arguing that your strategy would have been better in somebody else's game. It's starting to sound like you don't have enough to do. Go learn to play the clarinet or something.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4612
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 4:30:32 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.



No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.

quote:


Not having all of the information to judge is not weak, it is a fact. It does hold up to scrutiny. Any decision made must take into consideration all of the available assets and the counters to them. If there are not enough assets, you won't get the job done. Just ask the Japanese about Guadalcanal and the Germans on the Eastern Front in WWII.


Again, no.

The facts are there - the land and naval TOE's for both sides are a known quantity.

I suggest you go and look at the Allied TOE for 1944 onwards.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

mm, dude... you're spending a lot of electrons arguing that your strategy would have been better in somebody else's game. It's starting to sound like you don't have enough to do. Go learn to play the clarinet or something.


Thank you for your useful contribution to the discussion.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4613
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 4:47:29 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.



No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.


You can't bomb if you don't have the planes. If he were to have all of his 4Es destroyed for little gain and the pilots lost, that threat is then gone allowing the employment of the Japanese defences elsewhere.


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4614
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 5:14:06 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3112
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Incorrect. You can only do strategic bombing if you have the assets. Apparently he did not have enough to do the job.



No, you do it when you can get a positive return on VP's.

So this is the crux of what I'm trying to get at - the assets were there, it was their employment that was mismatched.


You can't bomb if you don't have the planes. If he were to have all of his 4Es destroyed for little gain and the pilots lost, that threat is then gone allowing the employment of the Japanese defences elsewhere.



If there were zero planes.

That wasn't the case.

Post 4427 is a good refence point for the realisation.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 4615
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 5:31:21 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7488
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Isn't this horse sufficiently dead yet?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4616
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 5:32:00 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Why are you keeping on beating a dead horse? Why not let him play his game the way that he wants to and you play your your own way?

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 4617
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/14/2020 10:01:23 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16921
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Isn't this horse sufficiently dead yet?

Apparently not ....





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 4618
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/15/2020 12:53:27 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
2/2/46 and 2/3/46

Seeking Victory: The Allies take Pescadores and Muroran (the latter on Hokkaido). A decent 4EB raid on remnant industry at Nagasaki. Lots of enemy units evaporating at places like Sapporo and near Canton. And the Allies need just 5k to achieve auto victory.

Here's a reflective note I sent to Erik tonight:

Some of my thoughts – perhaps all of them – are common to each Allied player.

The game takes so long to play; the turns are complicated; the planning looks forward months; the implementation of plans after so much thought and time is gratifying; the map is lovely to look at; you never lose sight of the fact that the opponent might score a major victory next turn/next week/next month; so you always plan ahead, even as the game approaches some ending; so that you have ships and troops in transit, you have prep ongoing for places you doubt you’ll ever attack or invade; you’re positioning supply and ships and troops; you’re training pilots; you’re always looking ahead.

And suddenly the game ends with a ridiculously lame trumpet flourish. And it’s really a letdown. IT’s so much a letdown than you kind of limp along in your AAR, desultorily, hoping that perhaps a roused and supportive community will rally to your side and provoke intense analysis and lots of thinking….but generally that doesn’t happen.

And an awesome game fades away, just like an old soldier.

We’re about 5,000 points from AV, near as I can tell. You might score 7,000 points tomorrow or next week, to throw my calculations off. But there’s a decent chance the game will end in a week or two.

And it’ll be sad, for all these reasons (at least, that’s my fresh recollection from my games with Fabertong and John III). It’s been a lot of fun. In some ways it would be fun to really discuss the game. But in all likelihood we’ll just let it fade away.

But I sure have enjoyed myself. The way the Allies approached the game – the way I approached it – was shaped very much by might high regard for your abilities as a player....

Let’s see what happens. I’ll try to close it as quickly as possible. But I aint countin’ chickens yet.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 4619
RE: Notes from a Small Island - 2/15/2020 12:58:59 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 11590
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Very nice and thoughtful.

It reminds me of looking forward to a relocation for a job, then actually moving. Then when the job was over, what do you do next? The weather was not conducive to fishing. So I would wake up early, look at the clock, roll over and go back to sleep!

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4620
Page:   <<   < prev  152 153 [154] 155 156   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Notes from a Small Island Page: <<   < prev  152 153 [154] 155 156   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

0.414