John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports



Message


John 3rd -> John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 6:24:56 AM)

The terrible and utterly impossible rumor of CR and I going at it again has been spread throughout the Forum. It is true. We are seriously examining a game between us and he threw out some House Rules possibilities. I thought I might place them here and we can discuss them.

Our game is held up until I can find the time to get the 5.0 Version of RA completed. This is hoped to occur by this coming weekend.

Here is what Dan stated in a differing thread:


I think John III and I are going to begin a new game. We're going to use his Reluctant Admiral mod, I think. I know nothing about that mod. I want it to stay that way, because that will leave me the fun task of figuring out what's involved even while the game is unfolding. For instance, I know generally that Japan gets some extra ships, but I don't know what or when.

John and I haven't gone any further than to discuss the possibility "in general." We haven't done anything like discuss house rules or settings. I'm inclined to tell him all settings in favor of Japan (PDU On, Realistic R&D Off, etc.) with one concession to the Allies: historical torps off. I don't think this gives the Allies a huge advantage, at least the way I use subs, but it helps when you know the subs aren't entirely useless early in the war.

I don't care about any house rules. As far as I'm concerned, we can discuss anything that comes up and deal with it ad hoc. But I'm not opposed to these rules: spending PPs to move across national borders and no strat bombing in China/SEAC/DEI until 1944.

Are there stacking limits in RA? I'm not sure I want to use stacking limits, though it's not a game stopper for me.


RA does use Stacking Limits. I DO like that a bunch!

This is open discussion for anyone to jump in on.





GreyJoy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 10:10:17 AM)

I don't know much about the RA mod (i apologise for this John) but one thing i know: after having played some 5 months with DBB and stacking limits on, i can tell u that i will never, ever, go back playing a "stock" map game without stacking limits.

Don't know why Dan doesn't like that idea, but for me it has given to the game a much much better flavour. You cannot simply mass endless infantry and go conquering wherever you want. You have to plan a well balanced army, built around a specific target with a specific stacking limit.

QBall could tell you how much stacking limits are helping his chinese defences. Not statically, mind you! Both sides need to keep rotating in fresh units, always keeping an eye on the balance between firepower and brute masses.
It's awesome




MAurelius -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 10:49:11 AM)

finally... a game that should last - I wish you both lots of fun! - and make sure you play the RA Mod WITH Stacking limits and DBB changes... it's awesome ;)




ny59giants -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 12:40:19 PM)

I know I will be talking with Olorin about modifying the India/Burma monsoon rules that I'm using that I got mainly from you. I want to get rid of most of them for 43 and beyond. I don't know if that was a factor in him going for Australia, but having that theater this quite for the critical period in 42.




viberpol -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 12:54:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The terrible and utterly impossible rumor of CR and I going at it again has been spread throughout the Forum. It is true. We are seriously examining a game between us and he threw out some House Rules possibilities. I thought I might place them here and we can discuss them.

Our game is held up until I can find the time to get the 5.0 Version of RA completed. This is hoped to occur by this coming weekend.

This is open discussion for anyone to jump in on.


John, being your current opponent in a "slightly forgotten" PBEM (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3126751&mpage=3&key=) I'd like to express my sincere doubts if you will be able to play all your now open (4?) PBEMs in the same time and pay equal attention to all of them.

Are you sure you can find time for all of them, and you will not lose interest in other PBEMs?

'Cos you know, from my perspective, losing interest ("damn my CVs, let him sink them...") equals quitting (that's what CRs opponent seemingly did, right?) [;)]

Let me remind you, you've got serious commitments, sir. [;)]
[Id est. update the AAR where you're not presented as a Victor, at least for the time being... [;)]]




Cap Mandrake -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 2:56:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I know I will be talking with Olorin about modifying the India/Burma monsoon rules that I'm using that I got mainly from you. I want to get rid of most of them for 43 and beyond. I don't know if that was a factor in him going for Australia, but having that theater this quite for the critical period in 42.



NY;

I take it this was some of voluntray restraint about operations during the monsoon?




BBfanboy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 3:58:32 PM)

I've always wondered at the rationale on the "no strat bombing until 1944" rule. I can understand that the Dutch would have pressured the other allies not to destroy their oilfields, somehow expecting that the allies would push the Japanese out in 1942. And the Japanese would have wanted to keep Chinese industry intact because they expected to take all of it soon. I am not sure either side expected to take any of the SEAC/India industry from the other, with the exception of Magwe's oilfield by the Japanese.
By early 1943 it would have been clear to the Allies that they were not going to take back the DEI any time soon and the Japanese were getting huge benefit from all that oil - enough to overcome Dutch objections and start strat bombing. Similarly in Burma/India and China, the scales had balanced, if not tipped the other way and both sides would have considered destroying any industry they had no hope of taking. I think early 1943 is the time to open up the strat bombing can. Both sides are forced to try protect something besides their forwardmost bases.




witpqs -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 4:03:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I've always wondered at the rationale on the "no strat bombing until 1944" rule. I can understand that the Dutch would have pressured the other allies not to destroy their oilfields, somehow expecting that the allies would push the Japanese out in 1942. And the Japanese would have wanted to keep Chinese industry intact because they expected to take all of it soon. I am not sure either side expected to take any of the SEAC/India industry from the other, with the exception of Magwe's oilfield by the Japanese.
By early 1943 it would have been clear to the Allies that they were not going to take back the DEI any time soon and the Japanese were getting huge benefit from all that oil - enough to overcome Dutch objections and start strat bombing. Similarly in Burma/India and China, the scales had balanced, if not tipped the other way and both sides would have considered destroying any industry they had no hope of taking. I think early 1943 is the time to open up the strat bombing can. Both sides are forced to try protect something besides their forwardmost bases.

The Dutch did their best to sabotage/demolish the oil fields as they retreated. I think they would have encouraged bombing.

Partly that house rule has to do with China, which is addressed in other ways in various mods, such DBB.




Canoerebel -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 4:27:17 PM)

Yeah, the main reason for that part of the House Rule is to give the Japanese player something in return for the "no strat bombing in China" part of the rule.

As for Viberpol's post, I encourage John to discuss this with him frankly and get that cleared up. I don't want to inadvertently siphon attention from an ongoing game. :)

It sounds like John will be mostly tied up with RA duty for this week. Next week, I'll be visiting family in Florida. So it'll be awhile before this game actually gets going.




Chickenboy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 4:33:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol


Good post, viberpol.

In my opinion, no player can 'service' four PBEM games equally well whilest maintaining employment, social responsibilties, etc. I think it's a reasonable request from a prospective opponent to ask about recent (over?)commitments and where a novel game fits into previous commitments.




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 4:45:37 PM)

I like the 'No Strat Bombing' HR. Keeps thing semi-level for the opening and then lets the Allies whoop it up s they did IRL.

The idea of Allied TTs WORKING scares the HELL out of me! Don't like the idea since it isn't historical and was such a factor at the beginning of the war.

I LOVE the Babes changes, Extended Map, and Stacking Limits!

As to games...I just wrote Viperpol that my slow moving 2x2 just ended, Viperpol (HE is an opponent) and I do a turn every other day, and Lew's game is just about the same pace (a turn every other day). I can easily take on the Southerner without issue. Add to this the wife starting to work more regular hours at the school district (me be home ALONE more) as well as getting our Caboose moved onto the Cochran Property (see You Tube: Moving a 1952 Union Pacific Caboose for THAT! [:D] ), life is settling down for the first time in quite a while. Got to like that.

To be totally honest here as well Dan and I's game over in WitP was masterful. To get the chance to play him again is a great honor and I cannot ignore that factor. The Gentleman became much more then an opponent during a horribly rough time in my life and I welcome the idea of more regular communication with him once more. Give us a good chance to catch-up on each other's lives and famillies.

My biggest concern is doing the AAR. Dan's AARs are masterpieces and I HAVE to do one while our game is going. This will be the challenge.




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 4:48:01 PM)

Monsoon Rules are something I have worked with to slow down the pace of the Burma War. The hyperactivity there just drives me nuts. Not at all reflective of how the Monsoon STOPPED action for nearly 5-6 months a year. If someone has a reasonable way to HR this I would love to see it.




Chickenboy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/12/2012 6:34:32 PM)

Canoerebel:

Since this thread is not limited in its readership, I will give you my opinion re: enacting HRs in this prospective game of yours:

Until you have a better feel for what is included in this RA Mod, I'd advise you not to enter into discussions of HRs. In my opinion, one must have a feel for the OOB and its influence on gameplay for both sides before 'nibbling around the edges' of HRs. You may feel that 'working torpedoes' is a necessity for the Allies given the hugely expanded IJN OOB. You'll only know if you spend some time reviewing the Japanese 'gets' for this scenario and comparing them to the (more limited) Allied benefits.

I also suggest that you consider your choice to engage in a novel PBEM with somebody already committed to several other games. You have made it clear that you expect a certain fealty to gameplay and attention to detail in your opponents. The opponents you have played in the past may not provide you with the same gameplay you have come to expect given their other existing obligations.




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 12:36:14 AM)

You know...I think I KNOW what I am capable of playing when it comes to my own time.




CowboyRonin -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 12:37:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I've always wondered at the rationale on the "no strat bombing until 1944" rule. I can understand that the Dutch would have pressured the other allies not to destroy their oilfields, somehow expecting that the allies would push the Japanese out in 1942. And the Japanese would have wanted to keep Chinese industry intact because they expected to take all of it soon. I am not sure either side expected to take any of the SEAC/India industry from the other, with the exception of Magwe's oilfield by the Japanese.
By early 1943 it would have been clear to the Allies that they were not going to take back the DEI any time soon and the Japanese were getting huge benefit from all that oil - enough to overcome Dutch objections and start strat bombing. Similarly in Burma/India and China, the scales had balanced, if not tipped the other way and both sides would have considered destroying any industry they had no hope of taking. I think early 1943 is the time to open up the strat bombing can. Both sides are forced to try protect something besides their forwardmost bases.


Actually, the Dutch themselves engaged in extensive demolition of refineries and oilfields (when possible). This argument may have more value in SEAC (where the oilfields at Rangoon and Magwe were British-owned) than the DEI. I believe that, in reality, no strategic bombing was undertaken for two inter-related reasons (neither of which is simulated in game): there were very few B-17 bombers in the theatre, and the ABDA area was a low priority for more because they were being used in more US-centric areas to stop the Japanese advance. Remember, at the time, the B-17 was considered an anti-shipping weapon (this was it's original mission). To make a long story short and get back on topic, a "no strategic bombing" HR is simply a kludge to reproduce a historical outcome, rather than a 'real' political limitation. A 'true' political HR would be something like this: forbid transfer to Capetown of any air unit not assigned to 10th Air Force or Southeast Asia or any land unit not assigned to Southeast Asia, and forbid any new assignents to these commands before X (certainly 1943). The tendendcy to assign major combat formations to India is something the US commanders at the time would never imagine; they were begging for at least 1 more infantry diviison for Hawaii almost as soon as the bombs stopped falling, and didn't stop until well after Midway. The British never considered asking for help because their Indian Army was considered a "crown jewel". In the game, we understand it starts out as a paper tiger, but the US Army was scarcely better (the US considered all of 4 infantry division suitable for overseas service in October, 1942, and one of them is the 3rd Infantry).




Dan Nichols -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 2:38:04 AM)

You realize that real men do not use house rules. [:D]




Chickenboy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 2:44:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

You know...I think I KNOW what I am capable of playing when it comes to my own time.



John, please note that my comment was addressed to Canoerebel.

I'm sure you know what your capabilities are vis a vis your own time. I consider it fair to speak my piece to Canoerebel as well. Having seen the disappointment with Dan's recent games, it behooves me to point out possible conflict where I see it, both in HRs and other gameplay considerations.

I've said my bit, thanks for the opportunity.

@ Canoerebel or anyone else: please PM me if you want to ask anything further.




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 5:27:31 AM)

Thank You for that Sir.

I think an angle that also plays into this is player compatibility: Dan and I know each other, we know each other's lives, and know what it is to commit to what would certainly be a strongly followed Campaign. I'm already thinking of the possibilities. Where to go? What to lunge for? Will I face the 'conservative' or 'bold' CR... Will I be rash, boldly rash, or just plain STUPIDLY rash??!! All questions to be decided.

If Dan isn't sure about RA then I will gladly play a Da Babes-based Scenario. We could do pure vanilla with Scen 1. Don't like Scen 2 due to it being absolutely outlandish (my opinion). This is why I like RA since it falls in between. It has a stronger slightly stronger Kaigun at start, a much stronger Fleet at mid-game, and very few changes to the IJA.





Bullwinkle58 -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 1:11:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

You realize that real men do not use house rules. [:D]


Kazinga!!




MAurelius -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 1:56:59 PM)

if someone wants to address something to someone in specific - then why not use PMs in the first place I wonder...




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 2:52:22 PM)

What do people think is the best manner to address Fighters and stratospheric sweeps? Many say it is using the Fighters primary or secondary maneuver altitudes while others say to simply place an altitude restriction that gradually moves up as time passes.

Thoughts here?




witpqs -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 3:42:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

What do people think is the best manner to address Fighters and stratospheric sweeps? Many say it is using the Fighters primary or secondary maneuver altitudes while others say to simply place an altitude restriction that gradually moves up as time passes.

Thoughts here?


The best way is don't waste any time on that. There are counter-measures for the defender, and in cases where the counter-measures don't work well it's just a reasonable analog of reality. That approach is working well for Andav and I, and for four of us in a 2x2.




Canoerebel -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 4:02:43 PM)

I don't care anything about HR regarding fighter altitude. In the first place, I've never looked at "altitude bands." I have no idea what they are or how to find them. I don't want to know. Secondly, I seldom run sweeps as the Allied player. Sweeps in '42 are a good way to get destroyed, and all my games (seemingly) end in '42.

With respect to John's gaming, there seem to be some currents here. I'm not aware of them, what's behind them, etc. I trust John to deal with the situation, especially now that concerns have been brought to his attention.

John is my most veteran opponent going way back to UV days (with Miller a close second). John and I have enjoyed some great matches. Too, like he said, we've become good friends through some real life channels. I'll really enjoy locking horms with him.

PoultryLad's advice is good advice, but I'm probably not going to take it. [:)] I'm willing to jump into RA nearly blind, because that's the kinda thing I want to do. I'm contemplating a different AAR format, and I think this might work well. Besides, it's the best way I can think of to avoid the "Godlike foreknowledge" that is a mostly unavoidable aspect of the game. I love the idea of being in the dark.

I'd still love to play with reliable Allied torps on. I know John is concerned about this, but perhaps he'll agree give all the other advantages he should have (at least I think he's getting a fair number of them).




BBfanboy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 4:06:18 PM)

Didn't Michael M try to tone down the altitude advantage results in recent updates? i.e. they still get an initial diving pass but the number of opponents hit during this pass is less than previous? If that is the case, perhaps witpqs is right that it doesn't need any more fixing.

If there is still an issue of sorts, the maneuver band sounds like a better historical indicator. I think it was hard on engines to fly at max altitude [not enough air for the fuel being used as the engine strained at full throttle] so patrols would normally be set where the engine can operate well on cruise and still leave some room for adding throttle.




GreyJoy -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 5:52:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't care anything about HR regarding fighter altitude. In the first place, I've never looked at "altitude bands." I have no idea what they are or how to find them. I don't want to know. Secondly, I seldom run sweeps as the Allied player. Sweeps in '42 are a good way to get destroyed, and all my games (seemingly) end in '42.

With respect to John's gaming, there seem to be some currents here. I'm not aware of them, what's behind them, etc. I trust John to deal with the situation, especially now that concerns have been brought to his attention.

John is my most veteran opponent going way back to UV days (with Miller a close second). John and I have enjoyed some great matches. Too, like he said, we've become good friends through some real life channels. I'll really enjoy locking horms with him.

PoultryLad's advice is good advice, but I'm probably not going to take it. [:)] I'm willing to jump into RA nearly blind, because that's the kinda thing I want to do. I'm contemplating a different AAR format, and I think this might work well. Besides, it's the best way I can think of to avoid the "Godlike foreknowledge" that is a mostly unavoidable aspect of the game. I love the idea of being in the dark.

I'd still love to play with reliable Allied torps on. I know John is concerned about this, but perhaps he'll agree give all the other advantages he should have (at least I think he's getting a fair number of them).



Dan, if RA uses the same DBB modifications concerning japanese ASW, i can assure you that the reliable allied torp option is a game breaker. Believe me: with the DBB modifications, the japanese ASW is so nerfed that even with the non reliable torps Brad has sunk nearly 60 ships by october 42 (and he never came across a CV or a BB thank God!). So i truly think it may become a problem for you both.

Again, i strongly suggest you to keep a door open for the stacking limit rule...it ROCKS!

can't say about altitudes...i've played against Rader using first a fixed altitude (20k), then the "second mnvr alt band" rule... and both worked without much problems.
I'm now playing with Brad with the latter rule and neither of us is having a problem with it...works fine.

And i can guarantee that going stratosphere means, with the latest betas, a great fatigue and a low morale for the unit. I remember when i was using P-47s over Tokyo flying between 36k and 41k they had to be rotated out of the line every other day to recover after a sweep




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 6:00:54 PM)

The Max Altitude Rule I have used before is quite simple and here it is:

Combat altitude from:
Dec 1941- May 1942 20,000
June 1942-Dec 1942 25,000
1943 30,000
1944--45 Whatever

This being said above, I tend to agree with Greyjoy. We could leave the Fighter stuff alone since it appears there has been some serious work to 'correct' some of the issues.

As to TTs and ASW. I can speak from serious experience with RA, as a DBB-Based Mod, that I CANNOT sink an Allied SS. In Lew and I's game (July 42) I think I have sunk maybe 1 strictly due to ASW. Allied TT scare the HELL out of me. They can truly change the game from day one due to allllllllllllllll those SS in Manila.






Canoerebel -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 7:16:37 PM)

Okay, I hear you about subs. As I understand it, the mod we'll play has nerfed IJN ASW. Based on that, you feel that reliable Allied torps is "too much." I can live with that.

I prefer as few HR as possible, so it sounds like we can leave fighters out of it. The problem has been addressed. Even if it hasn't, I don't play in a way that would have taken advantage of the old problem. I'd rather not have to keep up with the minutae of a House Rule if I can avoid doing so and if it is unnecessary to the game.




witpqs -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 8:47:57 PM)

In DaBabes 28-C (which is version B plus reduced cargo loads) my Allied subs get sunk:

[image]local://upfiles/14248/F92016C7116049E0956C3375816AB7A1.jpg[/image]




Lecivius -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/13/2012 10:44:18 PM)

Having played RA myself, I can state I have been pleasantly surprised with US sub operations. You don't get a lot of 'bang!', but you get enough that sub ops are not a waste of time. And I have lost a few subs to ASW going into the end of '42.




John 3rd -> RE: John 3rd vs Canoerebel: HR Discussion (11/14/2012 6:28:37 AM)

OK. Dan I concur regarding limiting HR. I'll put something together tomorrow morning and shoot it over to you. Will keep it simple and SHORT!




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0279541