Brainstorming: What's the best way to kill the Japanese Fleet?

[Jennifer]

There is, but I believe it is in beta.

And I refuse to use it at all if they don’t fix it so that moving the mouse to the right scrolls the map to the right and moving the mouse to the left scrolls the map to the left.  Right now it’s bass ackwards.

[bongaroo]

@Cmdr:

There is, but I believe it is in beta.

And I refuse to use it at all if they don’t fix it so that moving the mouse to the right scrolls the map to the right and moving the mouse to the left scrolls the map to the left.  Right now it’s bass ackwards.

Same thing happened to me when going from one drafting software to another.  Perhaps we could ask for a selectable option?  Wouldn’t be very hard to program.

[Jennifer]

@bongaroo:

@Cmdr:

There is, but I believe it is in beta.

And I refuse to use it at all if they don’t fix it so that moving the mouse to the right scrolls the map to the right and moving the mouse to the left scrolls the map to the left.  Right now it’s bass ackwards.

Same thing happened to me when going from one drafting software to another.  Perhaps we could ask for a selectable option?  Wouldn’t be very hard to program.

that would be acceptable to me.  I just want the map to function (scrolling wise) like Battlemap and other utilities.  If you want to do that by putting a toggle switch in so it functions “normally” or so you can make it function “backwards” that would be fine.

Honestly, I think it was a programming error.  Someone reversed a couple of commands telling the program to move left instead of moving right and thus, we got this weird acting piece of software.

[bongaroo]

@Cmdr:

Honestly, I think it was a programming error.  Someone reversed a couple of commands telling the program to move left instead of moving right and thus, we got this weird acting piece of software.

Actually it’s quite common the way it is set up.  There is no set standard for how it should scroll in any programming conventions that I’ve ever been informed of.  I’m used to programs working as TripleA does and it takes me a second to adjust to BattleMap.  [shrug]

Very similar to how I need some video games to play.  I like the Y-Axis to be inverted.  It’s just comfortable to me since my background for this type of stuff is aviation.  Push forward on the stick and the nose goes down.  Some of my friends hate playing multiplayer games with me where we pass the controllers around since whoever gets mine will have to switch that setting.

This is neither here nor there as far as Japan fleet killing goes.  :D

[Jennifer]

Screwed up controls kept me away from flight sims too. :P

Make the control work like the steering wheel of a car, not some weird configuration, that way you reduce the learning curve of future users and broaden your user base.

[bongaroo]

@Cmdr:

Screwed up controls kept me away from flight sims too. :P

Make the control work like the steering wheel of a car, not some weird configuration, that way you reduce the learning curve of future users and broaden your user base.

Well as far as left and right go, a plane will act like a car.  Left on the stick and you roll left.  Now as far as the pitch of the nose, well cars don’t do that :D

I could be completely wrong but it may have something to do with how planes were built since we’ve been building them.  When they didn’t have hydralic or fly by wire controls and the pilot was exerting force to move the control surfaces.  I dunno.

[Jennifer]

Yea, planes are backwards up and down, imho.  TripleA is backwards left and right.

[LuckyDay]

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

I analyzed the situation and see the nature of the attack.  Still think it involves good prediction of the actions of the Allies and involves sacrificing East Asia, if only temporarily.

run the numbers, you aren’t predicting well.  You even contradict yourself–above you are sacrificing E Asia, but below you apparently are advancing.

@wodan46:

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.

There is no contradiction.  Japan is the one sacrificing, the Allies are the ones advancing.

Remember, you were the one taking the Allied position of what to do, so sacrifice would be on their side, because your goal is to win as the Allies, not Japan.  So when you said that the Japanese would loose Burma and Manchuria on turn 3 it was quite the opposite of when you said that the Allies would have to sacrifice East Asia.  To avoid more unnecessary typing, I’ll leave at that.

None the less, your Indian fleet, as well as India & Australia and the southern islands mentioned will fall LONG before a US fleet would arrive, if ever.
Indian Fleet falls to fighters, India falls to ground forces, planes and naval actions after taking Australia.  Islands fall to transports on J1.  US begins building fleet, but by the time your bombers come in to play on A3 Japan is already out of their range and they cannot land in the Pacific unless the fleet first takes staging grounds, which Japan can repel because you haven’t build anything to make them change their plans in the first 3 rounds.

[LuckyDay]

@wodan46:

The Play by Post games involve a lot more typing, and under a time constraint.  I honestly shouldn’t be typing much at all, but its the least straining activity I can do that I actually enjoy.

Here’s a thought.  Your strategies all give the Allies the win in short order by quickly eliminating one of the Axis countries.  One would think this would actually help cut down on the amount of typing needing to be done.  As for time constraints- they can be set by the participants.  And since typing is the least straining activity…?  less straining than seeing your plan go down in flames?

[atarihuana]

forum newbie 1
–-------------

purchase

1 troll shield

combat move

discussion section to PBF

• 1 troll hammer

dice

1 troll hammer
Rolls: 1@5; Total Hits: 11@5: (1)

wodan strat
Rolls: 1@1; Total Hits: 01@1: (6)

[atarihuana]

results
–----

discussion cleared, wodan kicked to PBF section

mobilize

1 troll shield

collect

applause

[bugoo]

I thought of something interesting the other day and wonder how it would work out.

UK1 move DD+trans from australia with 1 inf/1art to SZ 46.

US1 move carrier, 2 fig, destroyer to SZ 46 along with 2 bombers.  Purchase atleast 3 subs, preferably 1 transport and possibly a fighter or DDs as well.

UK2 take phillipeans.  Leave fleet in said SZ.

US2 move carrier DD to phillipeans.  Possibly land 1 fig.  Move bombers to hawawi.  Spread out subs within range of both SZ 50 and 62.  Perhaps take Carolina with transport and DDs if you built them.  Be sure to purchase atleast 1 AC (load it up) and 1 bomber, hopefully more bombers and maybe more boats.

J3 is in a sticky situation.  They cannot retake and defend there fleet and there home SZ unless they built all navy on J2 or kept all navy nearby in which case you retake a different island.  They lose an NO and give the US an extra 7 IPC a turn.  And it even allows the US to help in the Atlantic a bit.  Thoughts?

[atarihuana]

J2: attack sz46 with BB, CA, DD 5- 6 ftr

defender : 3 DD, AC, 2 ftr

[wodan46]

@atarihuana:

results
–----

discussion cleared, wodan kicked to PBF section

mobilize

1 troll shield

collect

applause

Rolls: 4@1 3@3; Total Hits: 24@1: (4, 6, 1, 4)3@3: (5, 1, 4)

Rolls: 4@1 3@3; Total Hits: 14@1: (6, 5, 4, 2)3@3: (2, 4, 6)

Input ErrorThere was an error in your dice throw: “1a1” is not correct syntax.

Rolls: 1@1; Total Hits: 01@1: (6)

[wodan46]

Ok, think I got this dicefest down.  Atarihuana, lets rock

Game Plan:
1941 Setup
Wodan46 Plays Allies
Atarihuana Plays Axis
NOs are ON
Techs are OFF
Bidding is OFF

[bugoo]

@atarihuana:

J2: attack sz46 with BB, CA, DD 5- 6 ftr

defender : 3 DD, AC, 2 ftr

Actually i’d only have 2 DDs there and typically your cruiser is sailing toward India and your destroyer got sunk and I doubt all those planes are in range, but lets assume that is correct and you do that minus the DD and cruiser.  You should average 8 units left, we’ll say BB, 3 CAs, and 4 figs.  US2 counter is 3 subs, 2 bombers.  You keep on average 1.32 boats.  You failed to take India or Australia. And that is an extreme example, I highly doubt all those boats and planes are within range J2, if they are you ignored the UK india fleet and left Japan SZ unprotected which would dictate a different move from me.  Although in retrospect perhaps I should leave the bombers in LA for a turn =).

[atarihuana]

ive seen many people hit sz56 yet often i refuse to do this and rather send 4 fighter to the BB for a clean kill. i dislike sending my only naval fodder unit to get killed round 1. also the british DD / TN off india gets kiled and the planes are in range.  the CA would  be at phillipines or at sz51 with the carriers.  so even if it is a tradeoff and i loose my BB, CA, DD  i still have 3 carriers + my naval builds while US has its remaining subs. not good.

since US has invested most to all of its money in the pacific its no big deal if it takes one more turn to take australia or india.

[Jennifer]

@atarihuana:

results
–----

discussion cleared, wodan kicked to PBF section

mobilize

1 troll shield

collect

applause

I thought that was clever and cute.

Thanks for the smile, Atari!

[Jennifer]

@atarihuana:

ive seen many people hit sz56 yet often i refuse to do this and rather send 4 fighter to the BB for a clean kill. i dislike sending my only naval fodder unit to get killed round 1. also the british DD / TN off india gets kiled and the planes are in range.  the CA would  be at phillipines or at sz51 with the carriers.  so even if it is a tradeoff and i loose my BB, CA, DD  i still have 3 carriers + my naval builds while US has its remaining subs. not good.

since US has invested most to all of its money in the pacific its no big deal if it takes one more turn to take australia or india.

I had considered this as well.

I have even attempted it a couple of times.

I even thought of keeping the destroyer out and using only the fighters.

My conclusions:

The kill in SZ 53 is virtually assured.  It’s a matter of if you lose only the destroyer or also a fighter, if you send Destroyer, 2 Fighters in to attack the Battleship.

If you keep the destroyer, you risk a fighter, however, you have 9 fighters at the start of the game and 3 carriers, so you have some to spare.  Also, if you keep the destroyer, you can use it, in conjunction with at least 6 of your fighters, to attack SZ 56 if America puts submarines in the water.  This is a plus in my opinion because it means America either does not put only submarines in the water, puts them in SZ 10 instead, or builds surface ships which are more costly giving you an edge to get into position.

However, the added transport and Destroyer gives the American’s too much of an edge, IMHO.  Besides, when are you going to have a 33% chance to trade a fighter for a destroyer AND a transport (10 IPC for 15) and a 67% chance to lose nothing and get a destroyer and a transport in this game?