|
Gnoman posted:How well do you think you could fight if your uniforms have rotted away, you're completely out of ammo, your radios have rusted away, your tanks are out of gas, and all your soldiers starved to death three weeks ago? Based on Eniwetok, unnaturally well.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
The Sandman posted:Spoilered on the off chance that somebody who posts to the Matrix forums also reads this LP: This one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The game tracks supplies. You need merchant ships to haul "beans, bullets and gas" across the ocean. This is in fact one of the most important parts of the game as either side. For Japan good management of supplies (and industry) is critically important as you can easily gently caress up and cause everything to come grinding to a halt. For the Allies you need to supply all your bases that you are fighting from, plus getting enough supply to them so you can mount offensive operations when you want to where you want to (or against another player, where you find you can do so effectively). You also need lots of supplies to increase the level of the port, airfield, or fortifications at a specific base, which is also very important for offensive and defensive operations as well as logistics. You also need to move fuel (as in fuel for ships and industry, not airplanes) around to refuel ships so you can actually do things like fight battles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Read up on that one, the japanese player seems to be very cruddy at the air game and careless on the sea side of things (at least with convoys), at least from what I can compare with other AARs I've read (some Japanese players are really good).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
   The first one was a dud. The next three were not.   We skip to the next base. The American troops can starve out in the bush, and we can clean them up later.  Manillia falls to our forces. Five thousand enemy troops surrender. In real life, this was made an open city, but I've had to level a large part of it to take it.   The Chinese are to powerful in the south, I have diverted troops to clean up the situation.   The British counter attack, but it goes poorly.   The fall of Manilla is a nice 1,500 point swing in our direction. Now to clear out Bataan and get these troops freed up!  This one is not surprising.  Taking Manilla solves our supply problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:The Chinese are to powerful in the south, I have diverted troops to clean up the situation. Wouldn't it be better to divert troops from the south to help take Chongqing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:How well do you think you could fight if your uniforms have rotted away, you're completely out of ammo, your radios have rusted away, your tanks are out of gas, and all your soldiers starved to death three weeks ago? My current war game of choice has a desert-based airplane carrier that also produces a variety of units out of magical brown and blue triangles, I may not be the most adequate person to discuss logistics. I assumed supplies were more or less abstracted, like in War in the East. Happy to see there is always more grognard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
I'm sure someone somewhere is arguing that oil needs cracking and there should be separate trackers for crude, naval fuel oil, diesel, and aeroplane grade fuels
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Airplane fuel is abstracted differently from fuel; airplanes run on supply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Congrats on Manila Grey
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
goatface posted:I'm sure someone somewhere is arguing that oil needs cracking and there should be separate trackers for crude, naval fuel oil, diesel, and aeroplane grade fuels Gasoline needs to be added to that; not all tanks ran on diesel. And really, once jet engines start appearing, wouldn't they need their own fuel grade? Also I think propane and kerosene usage for those small stove soldiers might use to cook meals should be modeled, otherwise it's not realistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Yes, but that's also the same stuff people eat and the material used for raising the dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I assumed supplies were more or less abstracted, like in War in the East. Happy to see there is always more grognard. War in the East does not abstract the supplies: they're all still there down to the ton. They just don't have you manage their distribution directly because it's all on rails and roads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:War in the East does not abstract the supplies: they're all still there down to the ton. They just don't have you manage their distribution directly because it's all on rails and roads. WITE 2 is going to have WITW's logistics system. Which will be amazing in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Congrats on Manila Grey One for the ol' folder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
  The RAF goes on the offensive.  We continue pushing near Sinyang.   This is a vanity project, but its a nice easy use of a single small force.  A quiet day – I need to move more men into Bataan, but with the way units march in this game, that could take weeks. I'm hoping to reopen Changsha in a few days.  We get a new toy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Could you invade and occupy Alaska without setting off Patton's 8th army?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Could you invade and occupy Alaska without setting off Patton's 8th army? I'm pretty sure the line for activating Patton's army only encompasses hexes south of the Canadian border (though maybe it extends north to cover Vancouver as well), so invading Alaska doesn't trigger the army of doom on you. That said, from what I recall, there's pretty much no point in doing it. The bases there aren't worth many victory points. Certainly not as many as places like India, Australia, or even New Zealand. They also don't have important facilities like drydocks, industry, oil, or refineries in any significant number. Most Japanese players stop at Dutch Harbor (if they even go that far) and relegate the Aleutians to providing a speedbump to any Allied campaign targeting the Kuriles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Could you invade and occupy Alaska without setting off Patton's 8th army? Yep. It's a good way to draw off US resources and gently caress with any plan that they have to attack Japan from the north.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
drat. I haven't been paying enough attention to the intelligence reports concerning aircraft losses, Grey's poor planes are really taking a pounding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Whats the most single decisive battle that anyone's experienced in this game? Like, Philippine Sea+Leyte Gulf level carnage? Are there any ARR with a battle like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
I know basically nothing about the Pacific theatre because the British education system is absolute dogshit if you're interested in World War history. Why did the Japanese choose to strike against the U.S. instead of just opening up a second front on the Russians?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I know basically nothing about the Pacific theatre because the British education system is absolute dogshit if you're interested in World War history. Siberia wasn't a particularly resource-rich area (AFAIK) and wasn't particularly developed in terms of infrastructure, which meant it'd be a pain to invade through while also not yielding very much. In comparison, Singapore is a critical naval chokepoint and the Dutch East Indies and British Sabah were big sources of oil. Now, they were still considering an invasion into Russia (they called it the "Northern Resource Area", while the DEI was the SRA), but they got their rear end kicked in the Battle of Khalkin Gol by then-Corps Commander Georgy Zhukov no less, and that beating was enough to ward off any ambitions towards attacking the Soviet Union further.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Japan tried to attack Russia in 1939 - it didn't go so well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
There's loads of stuff in Siberia. But it's in Siberia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I know basically nothing about the Pacific theatre because the British education system is absolute dogshit if you're interested in World War history. The Japanese Army was inclined to attack the USSR before the war, which was called the Northern Route. The Navy favored the Southern Route, an attack on European colonies in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, which would also entail fighting the USA. The Army was unilaterally undertaking to increase tensions with the USSR, and in 1939 they initiated a major border fight at Khalkin Gol in the Mongolian People's Republic, and the Soviets decided to punish them. In August 1939 an overwhelming Soviet counterattack annihilated the Japanese forces involved in the attack. At the same time, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany was announced. The basis of Japanese foreign policy to that point had been the Anti-Comintern Pact, meaning an alliance with Germany against the USSR. The Japanese had no idea Hitler was going to pivot towards the USSR, and they realized they were completely exposed and panicked. The Japanese government fell and was replaced by a new one with a mandate to basically deescalate matters with the Soviets, get some distance from the Germans because they had completely screwed the Japanese, and figure something else out. As a result, the Japanese signed a treaty of mutual non-aggression with the USSR and turned their attention south. Not only was the USSR too dangerous to mess with, but the European powers were distracted by the looming war with Nazi Germany and open to attack. Japanese actions in China and attempts to move along the "Southern Route" led to escalating tensions with the USA and eventually, the decision to go to war with the USA. Germany made some attempts to secure Japanese cooperation in their war against the USSR but it was a complete non-starter, the Germans had betrayed the Japanese on this exact issue in the past, and the Japanese army was acutely aware that it was inferior to the Soviet Army. On top of that, the key issue in Japan was securing key natural resources like petroleum. The Soviet Far East would not have supplied any real material needs, whereas European colonies in the Far East were extremely valuable. So, tl;dr (1) The USSR was too strong and had already beaten them once (2) Germany had lied to and betrayed them by allying with the USSR in 1939, so there was no trust between them (3) Attacking the USSR would have done nothing to solve the immediately looming Japanese resource shortage (4) Between Aug. 1939 and June or Dec. 1941 the momentum in Japan had totally shifted towards war with UK/USA/Netherlands and it was far too late to turn around
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I know basically nothing about the Pacific theatre because the British education system is absolute dogshit if you're interested in World War history. One of the biggest reasons was the Philippines. Japan was building a potent colonial empire in Southeast Asia, and was primed to take a lot of oil rich territory from Britain (which, already stretched close to the limit fighting Hitler, would be limited in the amount of resistance they could mount), but US forces based in the Philippines would already be inside the defensive perimeter. The Japanese leadership expected that, once the Empire had conquered everything they wanted in the area, the Americans would probably abandon any plance of granting Filipino independence (which Japan probably didn't believe in anyway), and start fortifying the islands heavily in preparation for war and would be able to start hacking away at Japan's new colonies at will. The only chance to neutralize that threat was to take the islands and give themselves a formidable defensive position. To do THAT, they had to knock the United States Navy so far back that, by the time the US was in position to take the Philippines back, the defenses would be so strong that the weak-willed Westerners would be too afraid to attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
  Oh hey, my raider fleets finally find a target.   We take out another ship.  Time to rest these guys up.  I think I'm going to organise a air attack on Bataan to wear them down.  A couple of kills today, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I know basically nothing about the Pacific theatre because the British education system is absolute dogshit if you're interested in World War history. Years back I watched some Doctor Who episode having had the show recommended to me by a friend (I did not end up liking it), set during the blitz in WW2 and the doctor held some speech about how incredible it was that as Europe was burning and being conquered by Hitler one tiny Island nation stood up and said "no". Is that the type of poo poo that British people are taught to belive about WW2 because thinking Britain only a "tiny island" (or whatever it was he said that was close to that) in 1940 is so incredibly disingenious it boggles the mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Which San Jose is that they're near?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Years back I watched some Doctor Who episode having had the show recommended to me by a friend (I did not end up liking it), set during the blitz in WW2 and the doctor held some speech about how incredible it was that as Europe was burning and being conquered by Hitler one tiny Island nation stood up and said "no". Is that the type of poo poo that British people are taught to belive about WW2 because thinking Britain only a "tiny island" (or whatever it was he said that was close to that) in 1940 is so incredibly disingenious it boggles the mind. Contrast that though with most Americans having no idea that the Eastern Front was even a thing and that the Soviets pretty much broke Germany's spine single-handedly. It doesn't matter what country you're in, there's always large gaps in history education, or even outright fabrication of events.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Years back I watched some Doctor Who episode having had the show recommended to me by a friend (I did not end up liking it), set during the blitz in WW2 and the doctor held some speech about how incredible it was that as Europe was burning and being conquered by Hitler one tiny Island nation stood up and said "no". Is that the type of poo poo that British people are taught to belive about WW2 because thinking Britain only a "tiny island" (or whatever it was he said that was close to that) in 1940 is so incredibly disingenious it boggles the mind. Okay, to go on a long rant about the History syllabus in the U.K. In our schools we are taught a syllabus that starts with the Anglo-Saxon era and goes up to the Stuart era. So broadly from about 1000 A.D. to 1714 A.D. This is done in meticulous detail, to the point that we're memorising the names of Kings and Queens (Spoilers, it's always James or Henry unless it's a girl) and learning about how the peasantry lived. (Spoilers, it's always really poo poo). Broadly you're taught this from the age of 7 to about the age of 12. From Age 13-14 you're taught about Empire and the Wars. The huge huge problem with this is that this is far and away the most defining era of British history and the events that take place there colour the country to this day to a far greater extent than anything you've learnt before. Notably, the national curriculum at this level ALSO includes the French Revolution which is the most defining moment for their state as well. This means almost always you get a massively rushed curriculum wherein at the age of 13 you're taught a bare bones summary of certain aspects of the Empire and so at best you gain an understanding of maybe the slave trade and one other event, with no real knowledge of how we even managed to get these slaves to begin with, other than that they happened to be in Africa. I didn't know how the invasion of India even happened until I asked my dad. Age 14 you're taught about the World Wars, which in fairness, they do give you a year to study. But the narrative itself is completely and utterly focused around the Western Front. The narrative provided is centred around the idea that we were a tiny island holding off against Tyranny and the explanation I got as to why Hitler didn't invade the British isles is that he got bored and was crazy. If you recall earlier in the thread I asked a bunch of really stupid questions about operation Sea Lion as a result of this. Remember, we don't have any knowledge of how the Empire actually works I'll point out here that in a really stupidly expensive private school which ranks as one of the top three schools in the country, I was probably the best history student there during the World War period because I find that entire period incredibly interesting and the limits of my knowledge should be goddamn obvious because in reality I know poo poo all. At this point history becomes an elective subject. If you continue, from the ages of 15-16 you basically study Modern world history which is really really interesting but you're at the mercy of the exam board your school is choosing to teach with and the class you're in, so you have no real knowledge of what you're signing up for. I got to learn about American history from the end of the Second World War to the end of the Cold War and the rise of Nazi Germany following the Weimar Republic which was completely amazing. Unfortunately my school refused to let me do an additional A-level so I could take history from the age of 17-18 so I can't tell you about that. But the key here is that we spend about 5 years studying largely irrelevant periods of history wherein we have a bunch of inconclusive fights with France and lots of peasants lead bad lives. We have a year on the 200 year empire period and then another on the world wars before any uniform syllabus goes down the toilet. The history we have is therefore incredibly skewed because the impact (and horrors) of Empire aren't really explored and as such any later narratives we get are skewed by the perception that the Empire doesn't really exist. So when you get speeches about a tiny nation standing up to a superior foe people will lap it up. God forbid someone tells them about the 21 million casualties on the Eastern front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Years back I watched some Doctor Who episode having had the show recommended to me by a friend (I did not end up liking it), set during the blitz in WW2 and the doctor held some speech about how incredible it was that as Europe was burning and being conquered by Hitler one tiny Island nation stood up and said "no". Is that the type of poo poo that British people are taught to belive about WW2 because thinking Britain only a "tiny island" (or whatever it was he said that was close to that) in 1940 is so incredibly disingenious it boggles the mind. Every nation has it's ridiculous conceptions of what the war meant, what they did and who won it. Britain's national myth is of the plucky bravery of John Bull standing up against the menace of the mighty Edit: Also British, did history throughout school. We learn the wars, and we basically learn the following things: WW1, age 7-18: wasn't it terrible? All very patriotic, total waste of time, good poetry through, everything important happened on the western front and largely in Belgium and northern France, who cares about the rest, let's be honest, oh, also there was this one black soldier called Walter Tull and he was promoted and that was cool wasn't it, isn't it good that we're so tolerant as a nation. There were some guys from "the empire" whatever that was there as well and they were strong fighters and our hindu, muslim and sikh students should be proud of them for volunteering to fight so nobly. There was no discrimination. But gosh, weren't the trenches bad? WW2 aged 7-14: The Home Front, for several years. The Blitz. The spirit of the blitz. Mysteriously the blitz ended but the war carried on???????????????? WW2 14-18: Weimar Germany. Hitler. Hitler again the next year. MORE HITLER. Conditions in Germany, weird Nazi social science experiments. Why was that dastardly fellow elected anyway? The failure of appeasement, declaration of war MYSTERIOUS GAP 1939-1945 The COLD WAR, communists are bad and Stalin was so evil. lenoon fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
All I remember about history was spending a lot of time exploring what the common people were doing at [FAMOUS POINT IN HISTORY], but with no real explanation of why [FAMOUS POINT IN HISTORY] was occurring. Didn't do any of that memorising kings and queens bollocks though, apart from doing the Tudors when I was about 12 - which managed to completely avoid the topic of warring with Scotland. I know that my GCSE included a big section about public reactions to the Vietnam war. Not the war itself or the geopolitical ramifications, just lots of propaganda and protest songs. Can't recall what the rest covered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Drone posted:Contrast that though with most Americans having no idea that the Eastern Front was even a thing and that the Soviets pretty much broke Germany's spine single-handedly. It doesn't matter what country you're in, there's always large gaps in history education, or even outright fabrication of events. But enough about Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Basic history education in any country seems to lack any sort of reflection on the "why" part. It's mostly just a snapshot of whatever period of history happened to be considered "important" for the nation in question (30-year war in Swedens case) but not a whole lot on the "why" part. If I remember correctly it was "Look at this MAP, look at HOW loving HUGE SWEDEN USED TO BE, HOLY poo poo and man we were NECK DEEP IN GERMANY WHEN SUDDENLY: FOG! THE KING GOT SHOT, poo poo And then the Great Power time was over  suddenly: RUSSIANS, OH GOD THEY ARE CRAWLING ALL OVER OUR Nevermind getting anything on the pacific. Feels like I've gotten 90% of my history education from Games like this, Paradox stuff and whatever books/indepth documentaries I've found online. Just spending a few days with a CK2 or EUIV game on "observe" mode would probably give you a better grasp of history than years of public schooling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Just spending a few days with a CK2 or EUIV game on "observe" mode would probably give you a better grasp of history than years of public schooling. All the way up until an insane, homosexual Bulgarian Jew founds the kingdom of Israel on the Baltic coast in 1232 AD, loses a war against the Sultanate of Norway and subsequently converts to Jainism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:All the way up until an insane, homosexual Bulgarian Jew founds the kingdom of Israel on the Baltic coast in 1232 AD, loses a war against the Sultanate of Norway and subsequently converts to Jainism. It really explains everything about modern Europe if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
I will have you all know we Americans simultaneously saved hopeless Britain, liberated the surrendering France (and Europe) from Hitler's clutches and nuked Japan (to save American lives) after they really pissed us off at PEARL HARBOR. We did this BY OURSELVES, with no help from anyone. I mean the British let us stage our invasion of France there, but come on, what pussies saved by the channel. And nighttime bombing? Cm'on. The evil Russians, on the other hand, SIDED WITH HITLER, until Hitler invaded Russia during the winter. Then Russia somehow snuck into Eastern Europe to set up the IRON CURTAIN while we were saving Europe. We were never allied with the evil COMMUNISTS and fought their take over of East Germany (were they anywhere else besides KOREA and VIETNAM??) Also, it's sad what we did to Japanese Americans, but you have to realize... it was war and PEARL HARBOR. Edit The rest of history? Well the CIVIL WAR and SLAVES. The United States and CAPITALISM are the most exceptional great amazing bastions of democracy and freedom forever. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
We made it two pages w/o the derail. This is a thread for grogs following an aspie level game. Please keep that poo poo somewhere else, or allow that sea lion nerd back in here to plug his terrible book
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:43
|
|
