Jump to content


Photo

Play Balance in DTMB


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 666 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 27 November 2024 - 11:06 AM

Play Balance in Defending the Malay Barrier

There are so many start options in DTMB but the most balanced IMHO is the standard start. The record there is an even split between the Japanese and the ABDA. Any capital ship option IMHO weighs the campaign towards the Allies at least somewhat. Nevertheless, Allied capital ships do not guarantee victory as many variables, weather, approach, time of day and LBA may render any advantage the Allies have to be moot.

 

I suppose I should define what I mean by balanced. I don’t mean that both side’s OBs are dead even. They are not. But both sides have serious advantages and disadvantages. IMHO the campaign is balanced because how the players maximize their advantages while minimizing their disadvantages is the most likely reason they will win or lose.

There is not one right way to win as I’ve seen well thought out campaign moves founder on weather and other set up die rolls while moves that IMHO were needlessly reckless not only worked but decided the campaign outright.

 

The standard start Japanese IMHO are the easiest to play as their heavy cruisers are the kings of the sea in most situations. But there are only 12 of them (if you take the 2 as CD reinforcements) and while they are hard to sink; they are easy to cripple. Once they are gone the Allied cruisers rule the Japanese light cruisers. So, beware.

 

If you go with a capital ship option, then IMHO the Japanese need to shelter their heavy cruisers behind smoke to protect them from the Allied capital ships. Preserving the Japanese capital ships at the expense of their cruisers will leave the Japanese exposed when their capital ships are withdrawn.

 

I’ve been playing this campaign since 2016 (including play testing) and it never goes the same way twice. The campaign to me is just as fresh now as it was when we began. The only guarantee of defeat IMHO is to play the Allies as they did historically. Sortie full sweeps (6 cruisers) or none at all. Don’t get beat piecemeal.

 

WMC

 


  • Kenny Noe likes this

#2 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 666 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 30 November 2024 - 02:31 PM

As a further note on play balance, I always take the French Force X option in place of the ANZAC Squadron if I take a capital ship option for the Dutch. Selecting the French downgrades the force in Darwin to make up for the upgrade of the Force in Batavia. There are pluses to taking the French (they come with destroyers, have a third 8-inch cruiser and get 2 CLs and a good DD as reinforcements) but their lack of protection, radar, lessor night acquisition and poorer shooting (including no rapid fire) more than makes up for it. 

 

WMC


  • Mark Hinds likes this

#3 Mark Hinds

Mark Hinds

    Private

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • LocationChicago area, USA

Posted 07 December 2024 - 09:27 PM

As a further note on play balance, I always take the French Force X option in place of the ANZAC Squadron if I take a capital ship option for the Dutch. Selecting the French downgrades the force in Darwin to make up for the upgrade of the Force in Batavia. There are pluses to taking the French (they come with destroyers, have a third 8-inch cruiser and get 2 CLs and a good DD as reinforcements) but their lack of protection, radar, lessor night acquisition and poorer shooting (including no rapid fire) more than makes up for it. 

 

WMC

 

As a side note, one of the reasons I still prefer my modified GQ-1 and GQ-2 to GQ-3 is that GQ-3's greater detail is often at odds with my historical library.  For example, where detail on French gunnery exists, it appears quite competitive.  One example is the "Engagement off Sidon" ("Struggle for the Middle Sea", page 129), where 2 French destroyers with limited ammunition, straddled their British opponents from 15,000 yards, and elicited the post-battle comment that the French "produced long range gunnery of an accuracy considerably above our destroyer standard." 

 

MH



#4 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 666 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted Yesterday, 09:23 AM

Yes, our understanding of non-English speaking navies other than the Japanese tends to come from England (or its parts) and tend to have an English point of view that is not always reflected when you finally get an English translation of the French, Dutch, Italian or whatever POV that was written in the native language. I've heard several reasons for this, but I'm not surprised by any of them. I was cop for 20 years and investigated more traffic accidents then I care to remember. In my experience the more witnesses there were the more it would seem that there had been several accidents rather than 1. The stories varied that much. Throw national pride and war time propaganda into the mix and it's a wonder that the bulk of us agree that the war was WWII. The Russians call it the Great Patriotic War and discount everyone else's claim to have participated. Every account needs to be critically examined and if it does take different sources into account, then a very large grain of salt is needed.

 

But I was speaking from an analysis of the RAW and not my humble opinion of the qualities of various navies.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users