Question about house rule

[Rob Brennan UK]

Please post screen shot or a copt from the combat reports about the 'mythical' Truk attack .. It seems highly unlikely if not down right impossible.

As for using AK's to screen combat TF's , I'd say that was a gamey move and you dont have the right opponent. But you really do need to back up wild claims with proof else we cannot help you.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Please post screen shot or a copt from the combat reports about the 'mythical' Truk attack .. It seems highly unlikely if not down right impossible.

As for using AK's to screen combat TF's , I'd say that was a gamey move and you dont have the right opponent. But you really do need to back up wild claims with proof else we cannot help you.

Particularly as the OP has claimed there are 6 bases suitable for the Fortresses to launch from. Very difficult to give any credence to that claim (plus all the other claims as well) when on 7 December 1941 there are only 2 Allied bases in the entire region capable of supporting any offensive strike missions at all, and those two are way short of supporting full strength 4E strikes.

Alfred

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: armin

In all respect i dont know about what game you are speaking. In witp ae you can upgrade planes like from day one. Chinese initial groups not upgraded start with 36 planes not counting full squadron strength after upgrade and bombers which is even more.

With 7 hits from 9 per squad im sure he can. There is around 75-80 B bombers from day one. thats just B bombers together with other bombers it would more then 150 for sure. From PM area you can reach truk.

Funny thing is that you are speaking about what cant happen in my game that is actualy happening instead I was asking for advice how to deal with the situation.

Actually, you can hit Truk with B17Ds at normal range from Rabaul. Solution? Invade it with KB support... There was a reason the Japanese expanded to the south..

[ALF1]

Hello,

Becouse we are speaking about me, the mythic opponent I would like to clarify. I do not want offend my opponent only ask for your oppinion becouse he accuse me be gamey. First what I would like to say I do not see anything gamey in my game but there could be different point of view which I would like to know. I will try to by specific to comments of my opponent.


1.Rangoon defence by hundert of plaine:
I pay PP to release AVG squadrons - I move them from CAF HQ(R) to the "China AIR taskForce" see picture - I do not thing is gamey They start in Burma and I keep them in Burma.

2."i wiped out 1/3 or 2/3 of his airforce since all those pilots are supposed to be in training units":
This is completlly out of reality. Picture I post is after this "wipedig out" you see 7:2 AIR kills and no killed pilot , same simmilar for other 2 AVG squadron.

See this air battle from combat report:

Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 21
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 30
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 12
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12



Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 59
Buffalo I x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 7 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK Jaladuta, Bomb hits 1
xAKL Kwai Sang, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rohna, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAP Tilawa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rajula, Bomb hits 1
xAP Santhia, Bomb hits 1


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Port hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
17 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
AVG/1st Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 11 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
AVG/2nd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
No.67 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (3 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers

Is there something to complain ? I put this quit big CAP becouse just arrived one division in Rangoon( initially planed for Singapore - now I do not remember its name)

[ALF1]

Truk AIR attack:

Cannonfodder is absolutely right it was attack from Rabaul by B-17D.

Morning Air attack on Truk , at 112,108

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 9
E13A1 Jake x 3



Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 9


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage



Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
1 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
1 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Hosho-1 with A5M4 Claude (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 6 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
Okamoto Det with A5M4 Claude (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
17th Ku T-1 with E13A1 Jake (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
Kiyokawa Maru-1 with E13A1 Jake (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
Kiyokawa Maru-2 with E13A1 Jake (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead


I did it because Armin have all CV in DEI territory and he had approx 10 turn ago damaged CVL Ryujo after meeting with SARA near Rabaul.

So it was clear assumption to give him time to reach Truk and make the raid.

It is gamey or out or reality ? For me normal I use the opportunity I saw.

[ALF1]

And last post with probably biggest complay from Armin. I moved all not restricted B-17 from PH, SF (from all they are already from beggining under not restricted HQ) and Luzon ( here I pay pp to release them) to Soerabaja and I use them for ground attack to slow down his attack mainly in Samarinda and Manado.

For me it is not gamey ( maiby not historical but we have no HR to be historical ) He probably thing there is gamey becouse there is now almost 80 B-17 but as I wrote him is because he decide to attack port of Manila by KB and my B-17 in PH and Luzon were not destroyed - but this was his decison. Probably I suprise him that I did not sit down and was not waiting from the begining. I start to be active.

[ALF1]

ORIGINAL: ALF1

And last post with probably biggest complay from Armin. I moved all not restricted B-17 from PH, SF (they all are already from beggining under not restricted HQ) and Luzon ( here I pay pp to release them) to Soerabaja and I use them for ground attack to slow down his attack mainly in Samarinda and Manado.

For me it is not gamey ( maiby not historical but we have no HR to be historical ) He probably thing there is gamey becouse there is now almost 80 B-17 but as I wrote him is because he decide to attack port of Manila by KB and my B-17 in PH and Luzon were not destroyed - but this was his decison. Probably I suprise him that I did not sit down and was not waiting from the begining. I was active from beggining.

[VSWG]

IMO there's nothing to complain about, ALF1. Some nice moves right there!

[USSAmerica]

Indeed, I see absolutely nothing gamey in your moves.

[Atilla60]

I don't see anything gamey either.
As for the attack on Truk? Not bad, not bad at all.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: ALF1

Hello,

Becouse we are speaking about me, the mythic opponent I would like to clarify. I do not want offend my opponent only ask for your oppinion becouse he accuse me be gamey. First what I would like to say I do not see anything gamey in my game but there could be different point of view which I would like to know. I will try to by specific to comments of my opponent.


1.Rangoon defence by hundert of plaine:
I pay PP to release AVG squadrons - I move them from CAF HQ(R) to the "China AIR taskForce" see picture - I do not thing is gamey They start in Burma and I keep them in Burma.

2."i wiped out 1/3 or 2/3 of his airforce since all those pilots are supposed to be in training units":
This is completlly out of reality. Picture I post is after this "wipedig out" you see 7:2 AIR kills and no killed pilot , same simmilar for other 2 AVG squadron.

See this air battle from combat report:

Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 21
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 30
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 12
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12



Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 59
Buffalo I x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 7 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK Jaladuta, Bomb hits 1
xAKL Kwai Sang, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rohna, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAP Tilawa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rajula, Bomb hits 1
xAP Santhia, Bomb hits 1


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Port hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
17 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
AVG/1st Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 11 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
AVG/2nd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
No.67 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (3 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers

Is there something to complain ? I put this quit big CAP becouse just arrived one division in Rangoon( initially planed for Singapore - now I do not remember its name)

If you were going to keep the AVG in Burma, why spend PPs to change from CAF(HQ) to China Air Task Force?

[Dan Nichols]

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia. [:-]

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"? [8|]

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia. [:-]

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"? [8|]

Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.

[JocMeister]

ALF1,

Well done! [:)]

[Dan Nichols]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

If you were going to keep the AVG in Burma, why spend PPs to change from CAF(HQ) to China Air Task Force?

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

You need to completely form your question then. I thought you were asking why he changed the HQ at all, not to which one.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: ckammp





He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia. [:-]

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"? [8|]

Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.

Grow up you childish POS. I merely defended the gameplay of some one else. For you to make assumptions regarding my game play based on that is about as childish as it gets. I've been wargaming for longer than you have probably been alive and certainly don't have any need whatsoever to prove myself to the likes of you. If you had a bit more longevity on this forum you might have had the oppurtunity to witness the MANY games where China is conquered and the MANY games where India is conquered. Try defending your attacks on the gameplay of others with something more credible than mudslinging.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Grow up you childish POS.

I think there are some even AAR'd Scen 1 or DBB games where Japan has or is about to conquer all of China, or some other "extra" in addition to the historical perimeter.However, I'd say just as many are those(often short) games where Japan fails to secure even the historical perimeter.

I dont know of a single AAR'd Scen 1 or comparable scenario game where Japan has survived to the historical surrender date, or where it looks like it is going to. All the AAR'd games where Japan has done well have been Scen 2, AFAIK.

EDIT: just to make my opinion more clear, I am not saying the Allied are OP in WitP:AE, compared to the Japanese. But there is clearly something in the game mechanics and/or player psychology that favors the Allies that much. One part of it could be the higher than historical operational tempo allowed by the simplified logistics, only one player per side with less than historical responsibilities leading to more risk taking, or many reasons like that together.

[Crackaces]

Erkki .. I would be a newbie to this game only having 400 or so turns under my belt as an AFB .. but I would contend that the IJ fall into the trap of not transitioning into defensive mode until a disaster. Then the operations tempo accellerates for the Allies ..

BUT .. the victory conditions of the game might have something to do with things .. the airbase * port * multiplier means that simply building key bases up whether the base really affects the contest or not greatly affects victory points. I am unintentionally gaining all kinds of VP's this way ...

That said ..I would contend as the Allied commander in my game that it will last until 46 .. a real close call .. we shall see ...