Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Bob

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Bob Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bob - 1/19/2007 10:55:05 PM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline
Here is ...my dear friends...the discussion thread of the ....Thread vs Thread 3x3 game............all who are interested are welcome.......this is to keep the Thread Holy....and clean from day to day gaming business.......

So It is CHS extended map Nik mod russian fleet kind of game............PDUs on....what else?
Post #: 1
RE: Bob - 1/19/2007 11:02:21 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14382
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Good idea mate..............

Supper is ready now....back in a bit.......

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 2
RE: Bob - 1/19/2007 11:46:01 PM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
Yes I like this.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 3
RE: Bob - 1/19/2007 11:51:03 PM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
I also like the no submarine commando rule.

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 4
RE: Bob - 1/19/2007 11:59:09 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
Hi bob.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 5
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:01:01 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Hi bob.

Now if IIRC from my university days....we should all have a drink...............

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 6
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:03:00 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Hi bob.

Now if IIRC from my university days....we should all have a drink...............



Faber is dating himself again.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 7
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:03:43 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
First. i'd like to say i am deeply honored that you named this thread for me...

Second, being the contrarian that i am, i will vote NO on the sub commando rule. If it was good enough for the Marauders, it's good enough for me. Also, it keeps folks honest: in truth, IRL bases and places you want to hold should be manned, and if they are not, then someone just might land a sub party and seize it.


(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 8
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:08:06 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
OK - how about the rules i proposed earlier:

1. PT rule (no more than 12)

An alternate rule would be that Allied PTs have to spawned in Pearl, West Coast, Panama or Aden and sail to wherever you want - that way you can have as many as you want - if you can get them there...

2. Night bombing rule - this was a request from my IJN foe - i am happy to forgo it.

3. Bombardment rule - only in support of troops or for upcoming landings. Note: it would NOT prevent bombardments like those at Guadalcanal (since there were IJA/IJN troops there - and spotting for the ships.)


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 9
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:08:57 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Hi bob.


Hello...

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 10
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:09:06 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline
OOOh NOO....apart from dating myself...(a reference to age...I hope)....I have a 4 am wake up call ....which gives me a little under 6 hours sleep.....if I was to fall asleep now...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 11
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:10:20 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

OK - how about the rules i proposed earlier:

1. PT rule (no more than 12)

An alternate rule would be that Allied PTs have to spawned in Pearl, West Coast, Panama or Aden and sail to wherever you want - that way you can have as many as you want - if you can get them there...

2. Night bombing rule - this was a request from my IJN foe - i am happy to forgo it.

3. Bombardment rule - only in support of troops or for upcoming landings. Note: it would NOT prevent bombardments like those at Guadalcanal (since there were IJA/IJN troops there - and spotting for the ships.)



Agree...............

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 12
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:14:24 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline
Ooops...I'm still awake........

A good house rule...I think....asked for by Onime in my game with him....was the troops only move in APs....rule......exceptions being Arty/Tank units....and after mid '44 when the japs may only have a couple of garbage scows left.........It did slow down my advance.....and had a whiff of history about it......but we only played 5 months.....so I don't know it's long term effect....also...not sure about how it would work in CHS............

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 13
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:18:28 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
OK - voting to date (subject to mood swings and excessive alcohol consumption):

1. Sub Commando Raids Allowed?
Faber - YES
Niceguy - NO
Speedy - NO
Bruce - YES
Mike - ?
RT - YES

2. PT Rule (no more than 12/hex)
Faber - YES
Niceguy - YES?
Speedy - YES
Bruce - YES - but prefers alternate rule
Mike - ?
RT - YES

3, Night Bombing Rule (CITY bombing allowed, other (stationary) targets - UNLIMITED night trained units, and up to 24 non-night-trained aircraft (trying to adjust to this number)
Faber - YES
Niceguy - YES
Speedy - ?
Bruce - YES
Mike - ?
RT - YES

4. Naval Bombardment - only if your troops in hex, or if in preparation for a landing.
Faber - YES
Niceguy - NO
Speedy - YES, but... how far in advance prior to landing?
Bruce - ?
Mike - ?
RT - YES

5. AKs not allowed to move troops (except as Last Gasp)
Faber - YES
Niceguy - ?
Speedy - NO - not doable in 44...
Bruce - YES, but Allied evac allowed.
Mike - ?
RT - YES, but Allied evac allowed.

6. Units Limited to HQ Area
Faber - ?
Niceguy - YES, except on defence
Speedy - ?
Bruce - ?
Mike - YES
RT - YES, except on defence


< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 1/20/2007 1:02:00 AM >

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 14
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:20:42 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline
Sub Commando...........yeah, why not......go for it.................

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 15
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:20:48 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Ooops...I'm still awake........

A good house rule...I think....asked for by Onime in my game with him....was the troops only move in APs....rule......exceptions being Arty/Tank units....and after mid '44 when the japs may only have a couple of garbage scows left.........It did slow down my advance.....and had a whiff of history about it......but we only played 5 months.....so I don't know it's long term effect....also...not sure about how it would work in CHS............


Well, there are also LSTs, LSMs, and other invasion type craft that should be allowed to move troops... also, this might depend on the outcome of the sub rule (i still have my fingers crossed...) - but otherwise this is OK with me.

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 16
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:22:20 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
Rather than reposting each vote, i will just modify the original "vote" post, adding or subtracting items and votes.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 17
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:22:44 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4504
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Ooops...I'm still awake........

A good house rule...I think....asked for by Onime in my game with him....was the troops only move in APs....rule......exceptions being Arty/Tank units....and after mid '44 when the japs may only have a couple of garbage scows left.........It did slow down my advance.....and had a whiff of history about it......but we only played 5 months.....so I don't know it's long term effect....also...not sure about how it would work in CHS............


Well, there are also LSTs, LSMs, and other invasion type craft that should be allowed to move troops... also, this might depend on the outcome of the sub rule (i still have my fingers crossed...) - but otherwise this is OK with me.

OOOooops sorry...yes.....all troop carriers designed to be such count as APs....as do subs.........

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 18
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:27:09 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
I'm stealing Bob's post and numbering them for reference

1. Sub Commando Raids Allowed?
Faber - ?
Niceguy - ?
Speedy - NO
Bruce - NO
Mike - ?
RT - YES

2. PT Rule (no more than 12/hex)
Faber - YES
Niceguy - ?
Speedy - ?
Bruce - ?
Mike - ?
RT - YES

3. Night Bombing Rule (CITY bombing allowed, other (stationary) targets - UNLIMITED night trained units, and up to 24 non-night-trained aircraft (trying to adjust to this number)
Faber - YES
Niceguy - ?
Speedy - ?
Bruce - ?
Mike - ?
RT - YES

4. Naval Bombardment - only if your troops in hex, or if in preparation for a landing.
Faber - YES
Niceguy - ?
Speedy - ?
Bruce - ?
Mike - ?
RT - YES

My votes are (at my level of understanding of CHS)
1. No 3. Yes (though I don't really understand this) 4. No
2. I find 12 PT boats TFs a bit unrealistic and I prefer 6 boats TFs, but could allow 2 per hex. THat is what I propose, but would vote yes on 2 versus no rule at all.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 19
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:27:51 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
OK - i've added the proposed HQ restriction rule. i've put down votes as i remember or grasped them - let me know if i am incorrect. There were a couple of rules proposed that i don't recall at the moment.

I'll restate Faber's AP/AK rule as AKs not allowed to carry troops except as last gasp...

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 20
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:29:33 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
I can live with AP thing, and sub commando raids - no Problem here.

Allies should be able to evak units in AK if neccessary (use anything available)

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 21
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:29:38 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Ooops...I'm still awake........

A good house rule...I think....asked for by Onime in my game with him....was the troops only move in APs....rule......exceptions being Arty/Tank units....and after mid '44 when the japs may only have a couple of garbage scows left.........It did slow down my advance.....and had a whiff of history about it......but we only played 5 months.....so I don't know it's long term effect....also...not sure about how it would work in CHS............


Well, there are also LSTs, LSMs, and other invasion type craft that should be allowed to move troops... also, this might depend on the outcome of the sub rule (i still have my fingers crossed...) - but otherwise this is OK with me.

OOOooops sorry...yes.....all troop carriers designed to be such count as APs....as do subs.........

SO the allies could not move troops from SF to PH by AK? What about evacuating troops from a doomed command says the guy in charge of USAFE. Would I have to sail an AP to manilla?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 22
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:31:26 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
See my above post.

As a guy playing allies against T, I think maybe AKs could move troops from west coat to Pearl but no farther.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 23
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:33:52 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
If you can get PTs from west coast maybe you should use them how you want. If they are created in some backwater hex, there use should be limited. This beehoves you to keep track of point of origin.

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 24
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:34:58 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
No 3 night bombing rule, I vote yes.

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 25
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:39:22 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14382
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Good idea guys.

2. PT Rule = YES

3. Night Bombing Rule = YES

4. Naval Bombardment - OK with this BUT how do you define in preparation for a landing? A month in advance by Allies is not crazy if invading an atoll with billions of enemy on it (ask Faber)

5. I'm not sure this is workable as Allies. At least in stock. Have you guys seen 44 as the Allies? If you don't use AK's you can't move even 1/3 of your LCU's and it would be VERY hard to invade some festung's if you only have 1/3 of your troops on hand. Unless we're having a base limit for troops/atoll limit for troops?

6. Yes except on defence.



_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 26
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:40:22 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I can live with AP thing, and sub commando raids - no Problem here.

Allies should be able to evak units in AK if neccessary (use anything available)


Good thought - i've modified my vote accordingly...

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 27
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:46:07 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Good idea guys.

2. PT Rule = YES

3. Night Bombing Rule = YES

4. Naval Bombardment - OK with this BUT how do you define in preparation for a landing? A month in advance by Allies is not crazy if invading an atoll with billions of enemy on it (ask Faber)

5. I'm not sure this is workable as Allies. At least in stock. Have you guys seen 44 as the Allies? If you don't use AK's you can't move even 1/3 of your LCU's and it would be VERY hard to invade some festung's if you only have 1/3 of your troops on hand. Unless we're having a base limit for troops/atoll limit for troops?

6. Yes except on defence.




Perhaps rule #5 could expire on June 1, 1944... that could cover "Last Gasp" as well...

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 28
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:46:59 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12079
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
For sake of concensus, I am okay (really) with PT rule. I was not hard over either way so yes.


Also going to dinner soon so will be off for a few hours.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 29
RE: Bob - 1/20/2007 12:48:39 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22531
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

For sake of concensus, I am okay (really) with PT rule. I was not hard over either way so yes.


Also going to dinner soon so will be off for a few hours.


Bon apetit!!

(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Bob Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145