HOF V3 - "From Here to Eternity"

[Hasdrubal Barca]

The 2 minor allies sub was my fault, but in my defense, they were already at sea, so with wall the micro and macromanagement from Russia and Minor allies i forgot that the 4 movement rule only apllied to ships with exception of subs during Minor Allies turn, but the new Minor Allies player, Elephantium should not be made to pay for this, maybe if Elephantium agrees to rensend subs to safe port and not attack any japanese ships could be sufficient?

Eric is host and as last word on this of course..

 

[muzbang]

Japan Repport :

Mandalay :
Jap. Inf. Div (3/5) capture the city

Hong Kong :
Field artillery bomb HK Garrison (2/3)
Jap. 26th Inf. COrp (5/7) kills HK Garrison
Jap. 55th Inf. Div. kills artillery and capture the city



South of Pearl Harbor :
Val Dive bomber ==> CA Indiana (4/5)
Val Dive bomber ==> CA Northhampton (1/4)
Val Dive bomber ==> CA Indiana (3/5)
Val Dive bomber ==> CA Chicago (3/4)
Val Dive bomber ==> CA Chester (1/3)
Val Dive bomber sinks CA Indiana
Torpedo bomber ==> CA Astoria (1/3)
Torpedo bomber ==> CA Chicago (1/4)
Torpedo bomber ==> DD DUnlap (1/4)
Torpedo bomber ==> DD Drayton (1/4)
Torpedo bomber ==> DD USS Ward (1/4)
Zero Fighter shot down
Zero fighter ==> DD Maury (2/3)
Zero fighter ==> CV Lexington (1/3)
DD Hakigumo ==> USS Langlay (1/3)
CL Kashima ==> CV Lexington (1/3)
CA Tone (2/5) sinks DD maury
CA Nashi (3/4) sinks CA Cherster
CA Aoka (5/5) sinks CA Northhampton
BC Hiei (4/4) sinks DD DUnlap
BC Kirishima (3/3) sinks USS Langley
CA Kinugasa (5/5) sinks USS Ward
CA Maya (4/5) sinks CA AStroria
I-19 (5/5) sinkts CA Chicago
CA Chikuma (4/4) sinks DD Drayton
I-23 (3/4) sinks CV Lexington


South of Manilla :
CL Nagara (3/3) sinks sub
DD Hagikaze (3/4) sinks sub
DD Harukaze (5/5) sinks sub

Manilla
INJ destroyer bombarded ship (1/3) in the city
BC Congo sinks ship
CA Chokai damaged a plane (2/3)
Betty bomber destroyed plane
Tropedo bomber destroyed another plane
DD Mutsuki bombarded South Luzon Garrison (2/3)
Valdive Bomber destroyed Docks
52th Marine div killed by South Luzon Garrison (1/3)
SNLF (2/4) kills South Luzon Garrison
Marine Div (4/5) kills coastal defense and capture the city

Near manilla on the ground:
Convoi bombarded light tank (1/2)
48 th Inf. Div. kills light tank
16th inf. div (1/4) kills militia

Near Singapore at sea:
Torpedo bomber sinks CW destroyer

Singapore :
BC Aruna desroys coastal fortress
CA Ashigara ==> ship (1/3)
CA Furutaka ==> singapore fortress (2/3)
DD Natsugumo ==> singapore fortress (1/3)
Sasebo marine (5/5) kills singapore fortress
SNLF killed by flack (1/2)
Marine (3/4) kills flack and capture the city


Davao :
DD Asangi bombarded ship (3/4)
SNLF kills mirdamas force and capture the city

Near Pandang :
I-124 sunk by CA houston (2/4)
CA mojami (1/5) sinks CA Houston
I-62 (5/5) sinks DD Paul Jones

SArawak :
SNLF (4/4) kills SARFOR and capture the city

Palembang :
CA Haguro bombarded South Sumatra Garisson (1/2)
SLNF (4/4) kills conscript militia
Yokohama marine (4/4) kills South Sumatra Garisson and capture the city

Pandang :
SNLLF Killed by South Celebes Garrison (1/2)
SNLF kills South Celebes Garrison and capture the city

Near Batavia at sea :
Fast transport sinks sub

Batavia :
DD Uranami bombarded ship (1/3)

Sumabaya :
CA Kumano bombarded ship(2/4)
CL Sendai bombarded ship(2/3)

Near Brisbane :
Sub RO61 (2/5) sinks CL Hobart

Canchow :
Betty bomber shot down by Fighter (another rule not respected by minor allies)
Val Dive Bomber destroys road on furs

Ichang :
unit bombarded.

North of Japan :
Field artillery bombarded Force 9 Gale 1/3
I-Boat (2/4) sinks it

 

[muzbang]

The 2 minor allies sub was my fault, but in my defense, they were already at sea, so with wall the micro and macromanagement from Russia and Minor allies i forgot that the 4 movement rule only apllied to ships with exception of subs during Minor Allies turn, but the new Minor Allies player, Elephantium should not be made to pay for this, maybe if Elephantium agrees to rensend subs to safe port and not attack any japanese ships could be sufficient?

Eric is host and as last word on this of course..

I think i've sunk one of those 2 Subs,

BUT

There is still one sub, that i would probably have sunk this turn.

Minor Allies have also made air superiority, and i lost a Betty bomber that would never have been intercept .

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Noth was mentioned on restrictions on air superioriy, i interpreted as air missions flown (recon or bombing), since air superiority resolves on the next turn...my mistake?

 

[Bowsling]

"No air mission of any type" sound pretty authoritative to me.

 

[M60A3TTS]

Noth was mentioned on restrictions on air superioriy, i interpreted as air missions flown (recon or bombing), since air superiority resolves on the next turn...my mistake?

It was your mistake in that you enabled intercept in November and as soon as Musbang started his turn it was the next turn of December. Hence the intercept mission was active and he lost his Betty.

 

[eric_A]

Elephantium:
On your next turn disband one submarine and one P-40 fighter.

I know this was not your fault as you were not even in the game
when the mistake was made, but as the French say, c'est le guerre.

 

[M60A3TTS]

I know this was not your fault as you were not even in the game when the mistake was made, but as the French say, c'est le guerre.

Muzbang will be all over you on that one. It's C'est la guerre. Guerre is feminine. Go figure.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

I will send money to Elephantium to compensate him for his losses due to my mistakes.

 

[Elephantium]

Elephantium:
On your next turn disband one submarine and one P-40 fighter.

I know this was not your fault as you were not even in the game
when the mistake was made, but as the French say, c'est le guerre.

How about I spacebar them both for this turn instead? It wasn't guaranteed that the Minor Allies would have lost both units on Japan's strangely clairvoyant turn, so it seems unfitting to disband 'em. Skipping their turns, OTOH, gives them an extra window of vulnerability that can be exploited.

If you'd still prefer that I disband them, I will comply , but I'd prefer to roll the dice on the two units' fate, so to speak.

 

[aksully]

E..I respectfully ask you comply with Eric's recommendations. The Allies will be able to rebound....
Sully

 

[muzbang]

How about I spacebar them both for this turn instead?

I don't know why, but that isn't a fair proposition.
First, your fighter have destroyed one of my bomber...
And secondly, your sub will be unfindable because it has moved away.

And more over, it will be able to attack in the next turn !!!

SO that's absolutly not fair !!!



For the sub, i probably have destroyed it, so i will ask you to put it back near Batavia/Surabaya, in the north of the isle, and please tell me where it is exactly, so that i can attack your sub next turn (just like i would have attack it if it hasen't moved)

For the bomber that i've lost, in compensation, i do not want a fighter to be disbanded, that will give some more production to one of your cities...

Moreover, MA have scored Victory point by destroying my bombers, so it would be fair that i can destroy this fighter by myself, so, what about asking MA to let a fighter in an airfield that i will attack (and so, destroy that unit capturing that airfield)
I propose to let one fighter in the Ketapang airfield (6-6 of the city)

That would more fairly compensate for MA Mistakes

 

[Elephantium]

E..I respectfully ask you comply with Eric's recommendations. The Allies will be able to rebound....
Sully

Hey, I said I'd do so in my post, didn't I? I just had another idea and wanted it considered, that's all.

I don't know why, but that isn't a fair proposition.

About as fair as using analysis of the bic to pinpoint enemy forces. I don't exactly consider that to be sporting

Besides, if you don't know why, then what's unfair about it?

First, your fighter have destroyed one of my bomber...
And secondly, your sub will be unfindable because it has moved away.

And more over, it will be able to attack in the next turn !!!

SO that's absolutly not fair !!!

For the sub, i probably have destroyed it, so i will ask you to put it back near Batavia/Surabaya, in the north of the isle, and please tell me where it is exactly, so that i can attack your sub next turn (just like i would have attack it if it hasen't moved)

Re: the fighter, you do have a point, but re: the sub ... if you were only *probably* going to sink it, I don't see any problems with hitting spacebar on it. If you find it this turn, you sink it, if not, we consider that it narrowly escaped your patrols.

For the bomber that i've lost, in compensation, i do not want a fighter to be disbanded, that will give some more production to one of your cities...

Moreover, MA have scored Victory point by destroying my bombers, so it would be fair that i can destroy this fighter by myself, so, what about asking MA to let a fighter in an airfield that i will attack (and so, destroy that unit capturing that airfield)
I propose to let one fighter in the Ketapang airfield (6-6 of the city)

That would more fairly compensate for MA Mistakes

 

[eric_A]

Muzbang, Elephantium:
Stop arguing with with the referee and get on with the game.

I don't know why, but that isn't a fair proposition.
First, your fighter have destroyed one of my bomber...
And secondly, your sub will be unfindable because it has moved away.

And more over, it will be able to attack in the next turn !!!

SO that's absolutly not fair !!!



For the sub, i probably have destroyed it, so i will ask you to put it back near Batavia/Surabaya, in the north of the isle, and please tell me where it is exactly, so that i can attack your sub next turn (just like i would have attack it if it hasen't moved)

For the bomber that i've lost, in compensation, i do not want a fighter to be disbanded, that will give some more production to one of your cities...

Moreover, MA have scored Victory point by destroying my bombers, so it would be fair that i can destroy this fighter by myself, so, what about asking MA to let a fighter in an airfield that i will attack (and so, destroy that unit capturing that airfield)
I propose to let one fighter in the Ketapang airfield (6-6 of the city)

That would more fairly compensate for MA Mistakes

 

[muzbang]

The game is waiting for Lanzelot...

About as fair as using analysis of the bic to pinpoint enemy forces. I don't exactly consider that to be sporting

Every one here was able to DL the Biq file... there is no abuse to have a look at it

In every game i've played on a scenario where the biq was available, i always took a look at it, in order to decide of the strategy.
It's just a way to play better .


In the other hand, there were rules for the pre-turn, that obviously haven't been respected (subs moves, air-superiority missions)
It's just another way to play better



So, i just try to find equitable issue, without playing again the pre-turn .

if you were only *probably* going to sink it, I don't see any problems with hitting spacebar on it. If you find it this turn, you sink it, if not, we consider that it narrowly escaped your patrols.

Don't play with word....

I was able to sink your sub more than certainly... I've got 5-6 ships that were able to attack... i don't know how your sub would have survived

So your proposal is not very fair and has just one goal, to save a sub that should actualy lie deep in the Java sea.

 

[Elephantium]

@ eric: Ah, but arguing is what I do best!

@ muz: I still think that kind of .biq analysis is unsporting. I prefer to play based on in-game intelligence, not memorizing (or making a cheat sheet from) the game file to get info I couldn't get from inside the game.

Also - I didn't mean to play with words. You said "probably", and that means there's some uncertainty. So you see, I was taking your statement at face value!

I didn't realize that you had that many ships that could have attacked -- knowing that, I agree that the probability of the sub surviving was vanishingly small.

Edit: And all this probably doesn't matter, anyway ... the Minor Allies won't be sallying forth and overrunning Japan, even if both subs had escaped. As for the USA tribe, the loss of its starting carrier force won't slow it down all that much. With that in mind, I guess I can't really fault you for looking for any possible advantage as Japan

 

[muzbang]

okay you're all right

I've played US, and it's clear that they are powerfull.

But, i 'll do all my best to defend my territory, and to conquer China...

Japan doesn't seems to be easy to play, but i think that there are ways to repulse US forces

And every unit (like this damned moving sub and inteceptor figher) saved for me, or destroyed for you will delay the inescapable victory of allies.

A good plan for the first turns, will help too...
and finaly, maybe a good strategy and strong allies will permite us to win

 

[Bowsling]

you say to an Axis victory?:



Text reads: Japanese anti-tank kamikaze with anti-tank mine at the end of the stick. Burma, Philippines, 1945.

 

[Bowsling]

Double post.

 

[aksully]

we will get a post from Lanz and see if the Germans actions...are stronger than AXIS words??????

Sully