Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: Lifer

AS far as paying PPs to move units across boundaries...Are you going to allow the transfer of units into a HQ and then transfer the HQ to get the units without paying the full cost?

A fair question. I put it in the same camp as the Allies paying only 1/4 total PP cost to transfer an LCU to an Air HQ that is unrestricted, but in the same command. Sure, it's not historically plausible, but I don't know if it should be officially labeled "gamey" or not. I'll vote for allowing these type of moves, but will gladly accept the consensus.
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

I do have a 'thing' about only port attacks on one side of the International Date Line. But, for you two, I may be willing to make an exception...[:'(]
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Lifer

AS far as paying PPs to move units across boundaries...Are you going to allow the transfer of units into a HQ and then transfer the HQ to get the units without paying the full cost?

A fair question. I put it in the same camp as the Allies paying only 1/4 total PP cost to transfer an LCU to an Air HQ that is unrestricted, but in the same command. Sure, it's not historically plausible, but I don't know if it should be officially labeled "gamey" or not. I'll vote for allowing these type of moves, but will gladly accept the consensus.
If it's done in the spirit of establishing a truly independent separate command and filling it with units for execution of that command's mission, that's one thing. If it's done to skirt the PP payment rules and permit easy extraction of units for unlimited other uses, that's quite another. The first is reasonable, the second gamey.
Image
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by AW1Steve »

The problem is, Manila was aware of Pearl Harbor , and for the most part Tommy Hart was able to sorte the ships to safety (except for Sealion, with her engines in peices). Now , not only do I have to be stupid while the attack is going on, I have to do it FOR TWO WHOLE DAYS! Does anyone else see a problem with this? I was willing to do it in our game Andre, because you were trying to check out a theory. But I don't think it should apply here. Either that house rule, or the two turn deal should go.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem is, Manila was aware of Pearl Harbor , and for the most part Tommy Hart was able to sorte the ships to safety (except for Sealion, with her engines in peices). Now , not only do I have to be stupid while the attack is going on, I have to do it FOR TWO WHOLE DAYS! Does anyone else see a problem with this? I was willing to do it in our game Andre, because you were trying to check out a theory. But I don't think it should apply here. Either that house rule, or the two turn deal should go.
Hadn't thought of that, Steve (the impact of 2-day turns on this HR). You're right, of course...

I'll have to ask my partner how we should handle this.
Image
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem is, Manila was aware of Pearl Harbor , and for the most part Tommy Hart was able to sorte the ships to safety (except for Sealion, with her engines in peices). Now , not only do I have to be stupid while the attack is going on, I have to do it FOR TWO WHOLE DAYS! Does anyone else see a problem with this? I was willing to do it in our game Andre, because you were trying to check out a theory. But I don't think it should apply here. Either that house rule, or the two turn deal should go.
Hadn't thought of that, Steve (the impact of 2-day turns on this HR). You're right, of course...

I'll have to ask my partner how we should handle this.

Me, either. [:o]

I'll ask my partner how WE will handle it, too. Might have to call off the Dec 8th "Doolittle Raid." [:'(]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by AW1Steve »

Also, when we talked about the bomber rule, you suggested that B-17s were there as "anti-shipping" not strategic bombing. I don't think that's correct. I was re-reading Arnold's biography "Global reach" and a couple of books of military thought of the period. B-17's were sold to a pasifist public as a plane that "could defend our shores", but Arnold and other accolytes of Billy Mitchell knew that bombing cities was what it was all about. (Sure , if you could steal some money from the Navy , that would be a good thing too!). The 1st, bases for B-29's were China, in Mid 1944. To bomb Japan. And the Bombers sent to China in 1943 were bombing Chineese and Vietnamese cities. So we might want to re-think this. I know what you really want is no bombing Palemburg and DEI oil centers. But in essence , your calling no strategic bombing worldwide.
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Mynok »


I've got to do some experimenting with two day turns before deciding on some of this.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by AW1Steve »

When we make up house rules, allegedly to fix a game defect, I’m always reminded of a story I once heard. A young newlywed husband was watching his new wife make a meatloaf. Just before she put it in the baking pan, she cut the ends off. When he asked why she did that, she said that her mother had always done it that way. The next time he saw his mother-in-law, he asked her about it. “That’s the way MY mother did it “she said. At Christmas, when he finally got to meet his wife’s grandmother, he asked why she did it that way. She looked around; made sure no one else was listening and said in a low voice “because my baking pans too small!”

The point is , with these constant improvements to the game, and 4 patches, how many of these flaws still exist? My suggestion is, that as long as we are emailing the developers, why not ask what house rules THEY would recommend. [:)]
User avatar
scott64
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by scott64 »

Do like I do most of my games is hit both Manila and Pearl. [:'(][:D]
Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Also, when we talked about the bomber rule, you suggested that B-17s were there as "anti-shipping" not strategic bombing. I don't think that's correct. I was re-reading Arnold's biography "Global reach" and a couple of books of military thought of the period. B-17's were sold to a pasifist public as a plane that "could defend our shores", but Arnold and other accolytes of Billy Mitchell knew that bombing cities was what it was all about. (Sure , if you could steal some money from the Navy , that would be a good thing too!). The 1st, bases for B-29's were China, in Mid 1944. To bomb Japan. And the Bombers sent to China in 1943 were bombing Chineese and Vietnamese cities. So we might want to re-think this. I know what you really want is no bombing Palemburg and DEI oil centers. But in essence , your calling no strategic bombing worldwide.
So what is your counter proposal then, Steve?

I'm not sure that your examples are in violation of this proposed HR, with the exception of SB in China, circa 1943. Bomb anything you want anywhere in 1944 *or* bomb anything outside of China (even FROM China if you desire) in 1943.

Trust me, eliminating SB in China, circa 1943, is a boon to the Allies moreso than the Japanese. But, if you want all Chinese national RESOURCE, LIGHT INDUSTRY, HEAVY INDUSTRY to be put to the torch effective January 1, 1943, I guess I'm game.

I would propose that it's not worth it to you-the Allied player-to get in a few desultory shots at damaging Palembang, Balikpapan or Soerbaja before being kicked out of the DEI (and range) in exchange for an open IJAA hand in China strategic bombing from day one. Ask Canoerebel about that for more thoughts...

As far as your access to SB Japanese-held resource centers, you won't have any in range (except Magwe) in 1943 if we're doing our job.
Image
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by USSAmerica »

Dag!  I figured both of you would already be cool with these HR's since you used them before.  [:D]

I understand that having Manila pounded for 2 days may be a bit much, so I can see having to adjust that one.  I've never quite understood the rationale behind limiting strategic bombing.  It seems to me that the way to limit it early is by providing fighter cover at the target.  The Allies don't have very many 4E's to spare in '42. 

The strato-sweeps do seem to be an issue that could require a HR.  From the bit I've read, there are counters for that as well, by using layered CAP.  I don't have any objections to using any of these HR's as long as I'm clear on what they mean.  Andre, your earlier answers to my questions were very clear, thanks.  I guess I tend to be a minimalist at heart regarding HR's, but I'll go along with whatever is decided.  I just wanted to toss in my inexperienced two cents.
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
sprior
Posts: 8294
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 11:38 pm
Location: Portsmouth, UK

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by sprior »

Who's playing this game?
"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.

Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: USS America

Dag!  I figured both of you would already be cool with these HR's since you used them before.  [:D]

I understand that having Manila pounded for 2 days may be a bit much, so I can see having to adjust that one.  I've never quite understood the rationale behind limiting strategic bombing.  It seems to me that the way to limit it early is by providing fighter cover at the target.  The Allies don't have very many 4E's to spare in '42. 

The strato-sweeps do seem to be an issue that could require a HR.  From the bit I've read, there are counters for that as well, by using layered CAP.  I don't have any objections to using any of these HR's as long as I'm clear on what they mean.  Andre, your earlier answers to my questions were very clear, thanks.  I guess I tend to be a minimalist at heart regarding HR's, but I'll go along with whatever is decided.  I just wanted to toss in my inexperienced two cents.
Hiya Mike,

I'm the same way. Not a fan of HRs, but they tend to avert a reversion to the lowest common denominator.

The reason for HRs concerning SB in China is to save the Chinese from having all of their resource centers targetted for early destruction. No resource centers, no HI, no LI=no Chinese supply. Having no Chinese supply early in this game will bork this theatre and make the Chinese even more useless than they already are.

Think you'll be able to get sufficient fighter cover on site in China in the midst of a concerted IJAAF strategic bombing campaign? You may want to read Canoerebel v. Miller's AAR on this.

So-y'all have heard my bit. I'll go either way, whichever the majority prefers.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: sprior

Who's playing this game?
No one yet.
Image
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Also, when we talked about the bomber rule, you suggested that B-17s were there as "anti-shipping" not strategic bombing. I don't think that's correct. I was re-reading Arnold's biography "Global reach" and a couple of books of military thought of the period. B-17's were sold to a pasifist public as a plane that "could defend our shores", but Arnold and other accolytes of Billy Mitchell knew that bombing cities was what it was all about. (Sure , if you could steal some money from the Navy , that would be a good thing too!). The 1st, bases for B-29's were China, in Mid 1944. To bomb Japan. And the Bombers sent to China in 1943 were bombing Chineese and Vietnamese cities. So we might want to re-think this. I know what you really want is no bombing Palemburg and DEI oil centers. But in essence , your calling no strategic bombing worldwide.
So what is your counter proposal then, Steve?

I'm not sure that your examples are in violation of this proposed HR, with the exception of SB in China, circa 1943. Bomb anything you want anywhere in 1944 *or* bomb anything outside of China (even FROM China if you desire) in 1943.

Trust me, eliminating SB in China, circa 1943, is a boon to the Allies moreso than the Japanese. But, if you want all Chinese national RESOURCE, LIGHT INDUSTRY, HEAVY INDUSTRY to be put to the torch effective January 1, 1943, I guess I'm game.

I would propose that it's not worth it to you-the Allied player-to get in a few desultory shots at damaging Palembang, Balikpapan or Soerbaja before being kicked out of the DEI (and range) in exchange for an open IJAA hand in China strategic bombing from day one. Ask Canoerebel about that for more thoughts...

As far as your access to SB Japanese-held resource centers, you won't have any in range (except Magwe) in 1943 if we're doing our job.


My point is, was and always will be, the only two reasons for house rules are 1) one player is less competant than another (one hand behind the back or handicapping as you would) and 2) there is a flaw within the game and the house rule is supposed to compensate it.


IT SOUNDS easy to bomb from China. The 20th Air Force thought it would be, but there is that little supply problem. It takes lots of supply to keep bombers bombing.Japan bombed a few Chinese cities, but gave it up. Why? Maybe for the same reason the USAAF did?

My proposal is what I said before. Ask the people who built the game. What rules do they use. What flaws will be fixed next game. Quite simply , let's define the problem before we try to fix it. There might not be a problem. It might have been fixed, or maybe it will be shortly. I simply don't like house rules without a reason. That's to much like the government! [:D]
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Ask the people who built the game. What rules do they use. What flaws will be fixed next game. Quite simply , let's define the problem before we try to fix it.
Will you please get in contact with them and let us know what they identify as still being 'deeply flawed' enough for a HR?
Image
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by AW1Steve »

Frankly guys, I don't care. I'll sign off on whatever is necessary to satisfy you all. But I'll raise my objections now, and poke holes in them now,and then shut up about it once we start. In other words, I'll do my bitching now, not when were playing. [:D]
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Frankly guys, I don't care. I'll sign off on whatever is necessary to satisfy you all. But I'll raise my objections now, and poke holes in them now,and then shut up about it once we start. In other words, I'll do my bitching now, not when were playing. [:D]
No way! That approach certainly won't work for me! [:D]
Image
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Ask the people who built the game. What rules do they use. What flaws will be fixed next game. Quite simply , let's define the problem before we try to fix it.
Will you please get in contact with them and let us know what they identify as still being 'deeply flawed' enough for a HR?


OK. Who do you recommend? Mike said he had an email to someone about the next patch...who is it? Point me in the right direction and I'll hunt![:D]
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”