Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Patrick Hunt]

1 works fine because even if they call for help what exactly can the enemy do about it? Send more ships into a known trap and find nothing but wreckage at the area they're coming to so they have no reason to think any of the ships have been taken since we've been sinking them for over a year, plus by the time more ships arrive it'd be much to late.

3 doesn't really matter if they flood it or not, the entire purpose is just so the enemy is looking at those areas rather then the one our ships are going to land in, they're not going to be looking at docks where nothing has happened while they have bombs going off all over the place in other areas and I know they'll have some garrisons but it won't be a significant enough number to prevent several ships worth of men taking them by surprise.

They aren't likely to use artillery immediately because they won't want to destroy there own docks, they're more likely to attempt to retake it intact first meaning they only have to secure a relatively small area being the dock itself for a few hours and even if they do thats what the air support is for, bomb the artillery pieces if they do decide to use them.

Our combined naval and torpedo bomber force is enough to get the reinforcements through without to much of a problem because the enemy is not going to be able to gather and send out it's entire navy in the space of a few hours, it would take longer then that to get them all moving so our force would be more then enough to force it's way through.

The moment our forces land the enemy has to redirect most of it's air force to us and our air force is superior meaning we can handle air superiority and once we're on land we target the enemy military docks first to cripple it's navy completely, if it can't refuel then it will soon be rendered useless, the whole purpose of the feint is just to distract the enemy for the few hours while the initial attack happens. The only logical reaction for the enemy when he's being hit by bombs is to send his reaction forces into the area to secure it. Thats all it's aimed at, once they're in that area it takes time to regroup them to redeploy them.

The plan is perfectly capable of working and with a far far better chance of success then attacking an enemy fortified position head on, the enemy tried that on us and had the advantage and still lost, we won't have the advantages they did and we don't have the numbers to overwhelm them in a frontal attack so an amphibious landing is likely to cripple us as much as the enemy in the process, except the enemy is on home turf and dug in so we'd lose a lot more men.


So it's either surprise attacks to get in without a frontal assault or constant air raids and terrorist bombings for months to weaken the enemies defenses enough that we only take huge losses securing our beachhead.
Seriously none of you want to take risks in war you'd rather just recreate Russia's tactics and keep throwing men into the grinder hoping that the enemy runs out first. Because thats all an amphibious landing is and we don't have the numbers to win that fight.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Patrick, please never say that you are good in strategy

3 doesn't really matter if they flood it or not, the entire purpose is just so the enemy is looking at those areas rather then the one our ships are going to land in, they're not going to be looking at docks where nothing has happened while they have bombs going off all over the place in other areas and I know they'll have some garrisons but it won't be a significant enough number to prevent several ships worth of men taking them by surprise.

So you think that.......  That during 9.11 American security forces got an order to not care about airspace over Los Angeles because attacks happened on the different side of the country?

[10ebbor10]

So, General notes.

1. Avoid ad Hominem's and related thingies whenever possible. Actually, always avoid them.

2. Quid pro Quid , while technically allowed, is neither encouraged nor required. There's an unlimited amount of votes, and no lower limit needed before a proposal is voted. Technically, you can vote to agree with everything you like.

3. Creativity is good, and you might get away with it. Remember, the GM doesn't always know what he's doing. From what I gather from the plan, it does however have some weak points.

[3_14159]

No.

Point by point:

3 doesn't really matter if they flood it or not, the entire purpose is just so the enemy is looking at those areas rather then the one our ships are going to land in, they're not going to be looking at docks where nothing has happened while they have bombs going off all over the place in other areas and I know they'll have some garrisons but it won't be a significant enough number to prevent several ships worth of men taking them by surprise.

Looking somewhere else? Are you assuming the enemy land to have just the size of Luxembourg? Why should the garrisoned forces care about bombs going off a hundred kilometre from them, in another city?
Five hundred men is a reasonable estimate for a garrison of a harbour city. They might not be able to completely prevent landings, but they surely will be able to slow the unloading of ships to a crawl. After all, do you know how long it will take to unload troop transports via gangways, especially under fire?

They aren't likely to use artillery immediately because they won't want to destroy there own docks, they're more likely to attempt to retake it intact first meaning they only have to secure a relatively small area being the dock itself for a few hours and even if they do thats what the air support is for, bomb the artillery pieces if they do decide to use them.

They will use it latest when they hear of an approaching invasion fleet, and latest on them. Do you want to sail unarmoured transport ships with hundreds of men on each ship into naval artillery fire? That will not work.
Just as air support will not work. If they've non-idiots in command, someone will have built armoured casemattes for the guns, making them pretty much unattackable for our comparably light bombload. And that assumes we will have air superiority, which is not at all given. The Raven fighter has taken much of his combat power from the fact that it operated over friendly territory, reducing the fuel needed to get into combat.

Our combined naval and torpedo bomber force is enough to get the reinforcements through without to much of a problem because the enemy is not going to be able to gather and send out it's entire navy in the space of a few hours, it would take longer then that to get them all moving so our force would be more then enough to force it's way through.

Even if that were true, what about the supplies we need afterwards? How to defend against the naval bombardment then following from the enemy fleet once gathered?

The moment our forces land the enemy has to redirect most of it's air force to us and our air force is superior meaning we can handle air superiority and once we're on land we target the enemy military docks first to cripple it's navy completely, if it can't refuel then it will soon be rendered useless, the whole purpose of the feint is just to distract the enemy for the few hours while the initial attack happens. The only logical reaction for the enemy when he's being hit by bombs is to send his reaction forces into the area to secure it. Thats all it's aimed at, once they're in that area it takes time to regroup them to redeploy them.

What? You want to capture enemy ports to make his fleet run out of fuel? That's more than crazy. Unless you could land on every one of them simultaneously from the sea and capture them, the land-based route will take a long time for fighting, and once you are able to secure so much of the enemy land you have already won nonetheless.

The plan is perfectly capable of working and with a far far better chance of success then attacking an enemy fortified position head on, the enemy tried that on us and had the advantage and still lost, we won't have the advantages they did and we don't have the numbers to overwhelm them in a frontal attack so an amphibious landing is likely to cripple us as much as the enemy in the process, except the enemy is on home turf and dug in so we'd lose a lot more men.

And how would that change? Unless the distraction results in nearly all of the garrisons going away, the only change is that now the occupants of a few ships have to do what before the whole invasion force could.

Seriously none of you want to take risks in war you'd rather just recreate Russia's tactics and keep throwing men into the grinder hoping that the enemy runs out first. Because thats all an amphibious landing is and we don't have the numbers to win that fight.

No. What I want is naval superiority and air superiority, and afterwards use the fact that we can choose our own landing areas while the enemy has to fortify all of them. Landing somewhere, securing the beachhead far enough that we can actually bring in supplies and then attack over land.

Also, please use full stops.

So, General notes.
1. Avoid ad Hominem's and related thingies whenever possible. Actually, always avoid them.

Thank you, and apologies should I have offended anyone.

[Patrick Hunt]

No I don't and I didn't mean the garrison at all, I meant the military command itself, if outer defenses are being bombed the enemies first reaction is going to be to send whatever reaction forces it has to that area to bolster it because the most logical reason for it to be bombed is to weaken it ahead of an assault.

Our men won't be getting shot as they unload because the first group off wear civilian clothing with pistols and SMG under the clothing giving the enemy no reason to shoot at them so by the time the enemy know it's an invasion we have men spread out to ambush them before they can be concentrated to defend effectively because that force will be spread out to guard all of it not lined up watching the ships unload.

By the time this could be done we'd be using the Sparrow not the Raven which would be more then capable of carrying out air superiority in the area.

Torpedo bombers can harass the enemy fleet along with our own fleet, if we starve them of supplies we can out last them if nothing else but the enemy fleet is not all that much better then ours after all the losses it's taken and with our rapidly growing Osprey force we could handle it without a major problem unless they can seriously expand it and get a far better fighter soon.

No need to really land on them all, take a few for us and just bomb the rest to make them unusable for the enemy fleets and the job is accomplished.


How are we going to get both Naval and Air superiority in a short time? Because we can't afford a long drawn out war and getting full superiority in both will take longer then we can afford.
I've used this tactic against other people dozens of times in various military simulation games and it's worked perfectly every single time without fail but no matter I really didn't expect it to be accepted. Aggressive tactics ain't this groups style.
Which is the main reason I had back up ideas to make the inevitable mass slaughter of our own men in frontal assaults at least a little less costly.


And UR, I am good at tactics I just play more aggressively then you do, I force my enemies to fight me on my terms and constantly hit them with aggressive tactics that invariably result in my enemy being unable to counter me because they never know what is coming next.
I am good at tactics because every prediction I've made about our enemy has been correct, every tactic I've suggested in this game has worked exactly as I said it would.
The fact that my approach is different to yours doesn't mean I'm bad at tactics it means my approach is different to yours. Thats all. Playing defensively and waiting and hoping we're able to build a big enough lead is one strategy.
I just far prefer a more aggressive one that doesn't give the enemy all the initiative because right now he's dictating the war we fight and all we're doing is reacting to his moves.




But Epsilon that I suggested is also aimed at your amphibious assault, both to secure the beachhead against enemy counter assaults after the assault and because a bombing campaign across enemy territory at the same time as the assault will bleed off reinforcements away from that landing to counter non existent threats.
No enemy can ignore bombs going off all over his country or his own people will turn on him, he has to deploy soldiers in force to show that he's doing something.

Capturing enemy ships even if not for the assault is good because it makes supplying our forces easier if we have more ships.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am thinking about new kind of ship to replace protectors... probably too late to propose for this turn, but here are generic idea:

2500t as Protectors to produce them in drydock\other docks but capital ships one
small engine, probably 400t diesel like  Hunter
Either six 160mm guns or single 300mm gun and the ship built around it
Concrete armor belt
Anti-torpedo bulges
AA-arnanment, but less than on protector

Slow, but very hard to sink and offering nice punch. Of cause that is a monitor not a cruiser. That's what we need to fight off enemy cruisers, not raiders as protectors

[Patrick Hunt]

Why are we not taking mines? They're basically essential for defense but we have none at all.

[3_14159]

No I don't and I didn't mean the garrison at all, I meant the military command itself, if outer defenses are being bombed the enemies first reaction is going to be to send whatever reaction forces it has to that area to bolster it because the most logical reason for it to be bombed is to weaken it ahead of an assault.

So you send reaction forces there. Nevermind the fact that it will take hours to get them rolling, that not all reaction forces are organized on a theatre level, and that you still have not made clear what kind of areas you're planning to attack - coasts or inland ones.

Our men won't be getting shot as they unload because the first group off wear civilian clothing with pistols and SMG under the clothing giving the enemy no reason to shoot at them so by the time the enemy know it's an invasion we have men spread out to ambush them before they can be concentrated to defend effectively because that force will be spread out to guard all of it not lined up watching the ships unload.

And noone is going to challenge hundreds of people streaming down from a freighter that haven't been cleared with the port master. And even if not all are watching the ships, they're surely going to come once they hear gunfire. Remember: The landing force will be on a pretty open field for at least fifteen minutes or so, meaning easy to pin down by a few machine guns, and the freighters themselves are easy to sink for any anti-shipping artillery able to target the harbour.

Torpedo bombers can harass the enemy fleet along with our own fleet, if we starve them of supplies we can out last them if nothing else but the enemy fleet is not all that much better then ours after all the losses it's taken and with our rapidly growing Osprey force we could handle it without a major problem unless they can seriously expand it and get a far better fighter soon.

Nine Glory-or-better ships, versus one Glory and five 'light cruisers'? Not that much better. What, exactly, are our fighters to do? Harass the enemy forces, deliver ground support or bomb military harbours? We only have so much of them available.

No need to really land on them all, take a few for us and just bomb the rest to make them unusable for the enemy fleets and the job is accomplished.

A few? By what? Land? Amphibious assaults?

How are we going to get both Naval and Air superiority in a short time? Because we can't afford a long drawn out war and getting full superiority in both will take longer then we can afford.

Why not? Why is this war costlier, and why not aim to achieve air superiority without tasking the fighters with ground operations at the same time?

I've used this tactic against other people dozens of times in various military simulation games and it's worked perfectly every single time without fail but no matter I really didn't expect it to be accepted. Aggressive tactics ain't this groups style.
Which is the main reason I had back up ideas to make the inevitable mass slaughter of our own men in frontal assaults at least a little less costly.

Now I cannot take you seriously anymore. Please state what types of 'military simulation games' you mean.
Because unless you mean grand strategy games and/or grand-scale wargames the conditions are not at all comparable. You want to use the enemy's inability to do two things at once, which are not usable when the enemy is not a single commander but hundreds. And you want to use the redeployment of forces, when even the quickest will take a day at least.

And UR, I am good at tactics I just play more aggressively then you do, I force my enemies to fight me on my terms and constantly hit them with aggressive tactics that invariably result in my enemy being unable to counter me because they never know what is coming next.
I am good at tactics because every prediction I've made about our enemy has been correct, every tactic I've suggested in this game has worked exactly as I said it would.

Please list those predictions. Also, 'I am good at tactics because every prediction I've made [...] has been correct' is not exactly a sign of tactical (actually, the word would be strategical) talent.

The fact that my approach is different to yours doesn't mean I'm bad at tactics it means my approach is different to yours. Thats all. Playing defensively and waiting and hoping we're able to build a big enough lead is one strategy.
I just far prefer a more aggressive one that doesn't give the enemy all the initiative because right now he's dictating the war we fight and all we're doing is reacting to his moves.

No. Suggesting bad strategies means being bad at strategies.

Taking the initiative away is fine, but doing it by acting more or less random is not.

But Epsilon that I suggested is also aimed at your amphibious assault, both to secure the beachhead against enemy counter assaults after the assault and because a bombing campaign across enemy territory at the same time as the assault will bleed off reinforcements away from that landing to counter non existent threats.
No enemy can ignore bombs going off all over his country or his own people will turn on him, he has to deploy soldiers in force to show that he's doing something.

- Securing the beachhead: You know how mines work usually, right? You do not just lay them, you normally bury them because otherwise the enemy can see them. This means that you need time for that. Also, since an invasion is inherently an offensive one, you do not want to restrict your available movement, exactly what mines do. Additionally, laying mines takes time. Much time.
- Bleeding reinforcements off: Why, exactly, would the enemy have to show he's doing something against bombings when there's a [...] invasion force landing on his doorstep against which he's taking his troops? Aside from which, how would our agents remain in country undetected as strangers?

I am thinking about new kind of ship to replace protectors... probably too late to propose for this turn, but here are generic idea:

2500t as Protectors to produce them in drydock\other docks but capital ships one
small engine, probably 400t diesel like  Hunter
Either six 160mm guns or single 300mm gun and the ship built around it
Concrete armor belt
Anti-torpedo bulges
AA-arnanment, but less than on protector

Slow, but very hard to sink and offering nice punch. Of cause that is a monitor not a cruiser. That's what we need to fight off enemy cruisers, not raiders as protectors

I don't like them for the simple fact that they're pretty slow defensive ships. I believe that taking more weight-efficient steel armour should result in higher speed while retaining the protection, resulting in - while higher cost - a better vessel to take on the enemy offensively.

[Patrick Hunt]

.... I give up, no more opinions coming from me.

[evilcherry]

Pat, in the unlikely case that your double trojan horse plan could have worked, it still broke all post WWI rules of engagement. We are violating every single international law: The less likely case being Sovjets withdraw support, and the more likely case an Imperialist intervention which we are extremely ill prepared for. We also unite the enemy because our atrocities, and the combined force will reduce us back to the mainland without Crow Island.

Seriously anyone who fears IR repercussions will know this kind of terrorist-tactics won't work.

Not to mention that 1. we are not only technically at war and every single civilian ship is by definition suspicious 2. Any diligent commander will have their scouts on constant watch, and it is hard hide an invasion fleet 3. Unloading will be very slow and brutal 4. Without disabling their naval support beforehand we are trapping ourselves on the other island.

I would prefer a more conventional approach: Local superiority, land crawl forward, establish line, move support forward, repeat. Call it human wave, but draining manpower and damaging morale is the only surefire way to to win a war.

If you really want to play Espionage, perhaps shipping in agents to inciting unrest would be a better option.

Or, more realistically, do a Pearl Harbor when their ships are in port. Now.



In conclusion: apologies, but your "I am good at tactics" boast does not stand a word, and actually I feel my common sense baffled.

Out.

p.s. Not to mention that Pearl Harbor, while being very well thought out, only delayed the Pacific war for a year and a half. No wonder Yamamoto Isoroku got himself so close to the front...

[Patrick Hunt]

Finished giving opinions on anything.

1 thing though, sooner or later people are going to have to start letting other people try things and compromising on what they want to allow others to have fun trying things in a game, rather then every turn being a case of people blocking most of each others ideas while trying to make other people accept there own.

I'm starting to think vote trading is a good idea because it's the only way half the things people want to try in this game are ever going to actually be possible because other people constantly refuse to let anybody else try something that they don't like while expecting everybody else to vote for there own despite that fact.

[evilcherry]

We're already sinking enemy supply convoys which it's highly likely includes a lot of civilian ships since I doubt the navy has a massive fleet of supply ships as well as it's main navy.

I never even said we'd target civilians, so what atrocities exactly?

Finished with this.

Essentially your tactic needed False Flags at one time, and this will lead to my Veto.

We are getting back our de Jure territories and a couple of citizens back for crimes, not to commit war crimes on our own.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I've used this tactic against other people dozens of times in various military simulation games and it's worked perfectly every single time without fail but no matter I really didn't expect it to be accepted.

As a man who played a lot of PBEM matches in Steel Panthers and Combat Mission I'd love to hear what military simulation games you played.

[evilcherry]

I've used this tactic against other people dozens of times in various military simulation games and it's worked perfectly every single time without fail but no matter I really didn't expect it to be accepted.

As a man who played a lot of PBEM matches in Steel Panthers and Combat Mission I'd love to hear what military simulation games you played.

Because these games don't track your Badboy.

At least, it is not another great war; infamy DO matter.

[Patrick Hunt]

Again, I never said anything about committing any war crimes, not even once. Would you like to point where I mentioned war crimes?

Not that kind of game, more like this predominantly games like those that are run on the civ fanatics forum where I played AC's where you played against other players did your actions in secret and then waited for the outcome. Rather then a game that had a defined limit to what your actually able to do I was able to use any tactic I could come up with as long as whatever nation I played as had the resources to carry it out.

The same tactic I wanted is one I used 13 times to date with total success every time. But I already said I;m dropping it and didn't expect it to pass.

However bombing is still a solid idea even if it's only blowing roads and rail lines near where we land to cut enemy supply and reinforcement lines to make the landings easier. The same thing that was carried out during almost every major amphibious landing by paratroopers except we'd have to do it the slow way through neutral ships to slip our men in.