Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

All Allied Players Must Read This

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> All Allied Players Must Read This Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:05:04 PM   
gravyhair

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 3/15/2003
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

I have played ten serious PBEM games between WitP and AE over the last five years. (Everybody wants me to play the Japanese, so I still haven't had a chance to play the Allies.) Two went for more than three years and were a roaring good time. The rest ended within a couple of months - in some cases a couple of weeks. Why? Because Allied players simply can't sit still. They're like middle schoolers with ADD. Please, for the love of Pete, take note of the following:

1) DO NOT send your carriers raiding towards Wake or Midway or Kwajalein or wherever during Dec41. Are you nuts? Have Halsey spayed or drugged or locked up in the brig, whatever it takes to restrain yourself. 8 of 10 games I have sunk USN carriers within 30 days of Pearl Harbor. What are you thinking? STOP IT! You get your carriers sunk and then you want to quit. Knock it off.

2) Sing it with me, "Time is on my side, yes it is." Hum it to yourself when you sit down to take your turn. Engrave it on your forehead. Just relax and offer attritional resistance in the NEI for the first 6 months. Your fun will come later. No, you cannot hold Singapore against a competent opponent. Or Rangoon. Or Palembang. Or Rabaul. You are playing a human being now, not the AI. As the Jap I have only one hope - that you will send your carriers out for me to sink during the first 3-4 months of the game. So why do you happily oblige me over and over and over again? STOP IT!

I am so tired of Allied players wanting to quit after committing unbelievably bone-headed hyper-aggressive Worf-ish maneuvers in the first few months of the game. Why can't you sit still? Why can't you relax? Why can't you sit down and shut up for a few months? Bide your time, lay your plans, hoard your forces, then start kicking the daylights out of me! Why must you dash about like hyper-active children?

Okay ... I'm done ranting now. ;-)

_____________________________

Wise Men Still Seek Him
Post #: 1
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:12:57 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3677
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
From an Allied PBEM player, my best and longest PBEM (mid/late 44). I lost all 4 starter
CV's at canton .. yup it was a blow but made the game a lot more fun for both sides as
japan had a longer 'safe' period and allies had to think and plan.

I would encourage any allied PBEM players to carry on even if they lose thier CV's early.

It doesen't matter one iota to the outcome imo.

But as Grayhair (hope thats not a brand of shampoo where you come from ) says, dont
expect a fair fight in the early game, its an unrealisitic expectation and you WILL lose
a lot of material and ships. Conversely Don't do a Sir Robin either, balance it and you
will have a challenging and ultimately fun game.

just my 2p

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 2
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:15:27 PM   
Beezle


Posts: 1427
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
Fortunately you didn't read the thread where I sent my 4 initial CVs to raid the SRA in Jan 42 (and refuel in Soerabaja once). Otherwise I'd really be in trouble. <G>

Yes, that was risky but I did have LBA searches covering the area the CVs were operating. What I was hoping to do, actually, was have the KB go out into the Indian Ocean, deplete their airgroups, then fight the KB when they returned. (The KB never showed. I don't know where they are but they aren't around Indonesia nor in the Indian Ocean).

I figured the KB would be spotted but the Allied Air Combat group out of sight too far south for most air search from where the IJ had LBA at that time. I did get attacked once by 12 Bettys but splashed them.

Actually I thought this, though risky, safer than having the CVs in the central Pacific. More allied bases to run to in the Indian Ocean or Oz and more allied air search/less IJ air search.

(This isn't PBEM which I have never done. This is the Dec 8 scenario vs AI/Hard).



_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 3
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:16:09 PM   
Sheytan


Posts: 830
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline
DO NOT send your carriers raiding towards Wake or Midway or Kwajalein or wherever during Dec41. Are you nuts? Have Halsey spayed or drugged or locked up in the brig, whatever it takes to restrain yourself

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 4
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:16:12 PM   
Fletcher


Posts: 3385
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Jerez, Spain, EU
Status: offline
gravyhair, wise words !... I absolutely agree in several points that you explain in your post.
Regards


_____________________________



WITP-AE, WITE

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 5
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:19:20 PM   
dpazuk


Posts: 119
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

...unbelievably bone-headed hyper-aggressive Worf-ish maneuvers...



This brought tears to my eyes...

_____________________________

Blah Blah Blah

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 6
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:22:15 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 812
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
It only takes one "Midway" to start a trend :)

Luckily, that happened in real life (but rarely, if ever, in WITP!)

(in reply to dpazuk)
Post #: 7
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:44:23 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
gravyhair but those are the best games - I have made a habit of taking over other folks games as the allies in those situations and trying to rescue them is incredible fun !!!

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 8
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:52:29 PM   
Lowlander

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/29/2005
Status: offline
The Japanese offensive resembles a Tsunami, retire or defend until it starts to receed.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 9
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 5:57:35 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

gravyhair but those are the best games - I have made a habit of taking over other folks games as the allies in those situations and trying to rescue them is incredible fun !!!


Ever taken over a Japanese disaster? I have.

It's rather like making a squirrel from roadkill.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 10
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 6:12:57 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 860
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
Do you think the "old rules" will still apply with all the changes?

I had a long PBEM game as the allieds and I was more than happy to run and hide, but got cornered and lost a couple of carriers around mid 42.

I have what I think is a pretty good early strategy for the allieds down.

I would like to play Japan in a PBEM campaign game, but I haven't gotten my hands around the early moves and production.

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 11
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 7:09:07 PM   
Laxplayer

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/30/2006
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Hi. I'm "one of those people."

I'm a bit aggressive as the Allies in the early months. And yes I've lost CVs, but no I haven't quit in my allied games. I've actually had a bit of success with raiding the KB's Oilers in the opening days (and then racing away to Dutch and then East and South along the coast back to Seattle), especially if the KB sticks around to hammer Pearl more than a day. Hard for the KB to chase you if they have no gas and are a long way from home. I've also had success breaking up small island invasions early on, or at least sinking their transports and escorts in the SoPac area between Canton and Lunga. And lastly, yes, I've used them in WitP in the DEI, though it's much tougher there due to LBA. I usually lose my CVs trying to block some invasion in the SRA like PM. And in the DEI, I have a lot of surface groups trying to tear unescorted invasion forces to shreds. I will almost always lose all of the Dutch Navy, and likely all of the USN and British ships that start the game there, in the process... plus a few extra British surface ships (mostly CLs and a couple slow BBs) I send down there. And I will sometimes lose the British CVs should the mini-KB or some other Jap AC group of 2 CVs or less moves into the IO close to Ceylon... but then again, when they send only the CVLs or CVEs... I almost always sink them, and yes even when my CVs are only carrying fulmars and swordfish.

Regarding those cities, no, I don't try to hold them more than normal, unless you count trying to botteneck in the jungle/river hex east of Rangoon in WiTP. And yes, I've kept Rangoon through the whole war in a PBEM. For the most part, I think some players see that some guy did it in an AAR, or saw a post by some guy claiming they did it once, so they try to do it too. I agree with you in that trying to keep Rabaul or Singapore is madness

It also happens from the Japanese side... I've had a Japanese opponent attempt an invasion of Pearl because he read that one famous AAR where it happened, and he ended up losing 2 CVs from the KB in late Jan 42. He then followed it up with 2 failed invasions of Midway where he lost a 3rd CV... this is in addition to the tons of shipping, escorts and LCUs he lost.

Lastly, I've had a game vs. a good japanese opponent where I lost 4 CVs in the first 3 months. He ended up taking from PM, to Noumea, to Suva, to Canton. I was forced to go into build-up mode until mid 43. I was ok with that, but we ended up having a lot of turns where nothing was happening (mostly because very little actually could). The result: HE got bored and quit.

So ya, it cuts both ways

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 12
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 7:22:47 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laxplayer
I'm a bit aggressive as the Allies in the early months. And yes I've lost CVs, but no I haven't quit in my allied games.



THIS is the key to the whole thing. Play the game any way you want..., but be willing to live and play with the results of your choices! People who play "fast and loose" (with either side) and then quit because their "hair in the butt schemes" fail are the bane of PBEM. I wish there was a place to "report" them to other players so they could be ignored by serious players....

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 13
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 7:26:58 PM   
Beezle


Posts: 1427
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I will almost always lose all of the Dutch Navy, and likely all of the USN and British ships that start the game there, in the process... plus a few extra British surface ships


One thing that seems different here, either AE vs WITP or because of Andy's AI is that there are more small surface actions and as a result more losses on both sides. The surface battles are not one side wipes out the other, but both lose some ships.

So I have lost a number of Dutch and Brit CLs and DDs in the region but cost the IJ some ships (and troops in transports) as well.

Surface combat seems _less_ risky in that regard and the CLs and DDs I have lost have been in part to LBA due to overstaying my welcome.



_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 14
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 8:18:25 PM   
Laxplayer

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 8/30/2006
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Beezle: I think, at least in AE, that it's a lot more viable in part because search patterns aren't as overpowered as in WitP (they miss a lot more) and because betties/nells aren't quite as deadly, though they've still got a serious bite. In WitP, you'd be detected as soon as you entered the search circle of the nearest emily/mavis and you'd lose all your ships as soon as you entered a squadron of betty/nells range. In AE, you can play a lot more cat and mouse vs. lightly escorted or unescorted transport TFs in the DEI because of this. Obviously, bringing in heavy CV forces will send my surface tfs scurrying back to base, but that's about the only thing that will... and if it's a small CVtf.. I might even charge forward

(in reply to Beezle)
Post #: 15
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 9:44:25 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laxplayer

Beezle: I think, at least in AE, that it's a lot more viable in part because search patterns aren't as overpowered as in WitP (they miss a lot more) and because betties/nells aren't quite as deadly, though they've still got a serious bite. In WitP, you'd be detected as soon as you entered the search circle of the nearest emily/mavis and you'd lose all your ships as soon as you entered a squadron of betty/nells range. In AE, you can play a lot more cat and mouse vs. lightly escorted or unescorted transport TFs in the DEI because of this. Obviously, bringing in heavy CV forces will send my surface tfs scurrying back to base, but that's about the only thing that will... and if it's a small CVtf.. I might even charge forward


I agree searches are so much more realistic and play balanced. The next thing is full speed eats up your fuel and you can only do one turn without risking put in a poor position without having to refuel in case a CV battle occurs.

This spells in CV v CV, always a chance to miss during search but more important as allies you are now given the opportunity to actually spot KB before they get in strike range. Before a smart Jap player would sit 13 hexes off any player search range (catalina) use their superior range mavis/emily knowing allied location and then sprint in for surprise attack and allies would be shocked.

Knowing the KB location is crucial, once you do you can play a little risk with allied CV's esp now that betty is toned down a lot

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 16
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 11:17:04 PM   
Beezle


Posts: 1427
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I think, at least in AE, that it's a lot more viable in part because search patterns aren't as overpowered as in WitP (they miss a lot more) and because betties/nells aren't quite as deadly


I make a _lot_ of use of the graphic display of search patterns in the AE Sy=taff to help me with search patterns. One thing I am having to decide here, unlike in WITP is how may planes to commit to seach. Just a few may not be enough any more (too many and you have nothing to strike with).

Of course he who lives by the clever search patterns pointing in the direction the IJ are supposed to come from dies by the IJ who come from the wrong side <G>





_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Laxplayer)
Post #: 17
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/19/2009 11:33:01 PM   
Sheytan


Posts: 830
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline
Add me to the list then. The only PBEM game I tried in WITP went quite well for myself and my opponent until... my opponent locked down a marine division on Tarawa and used the KB as overwatch to protect a number of the infamous nuclear bombardment fleets which did nothing but bombard the island around the clock.

I did not commit my carriers to intervene even though they were in the area, the results of the bombardments made me realise that WITP was a flawed vessel and frankly wasnt worth further investment of my time UNLESS issues such as the above were fixed, and clearly in AE some steps have been taken to fix ahistorical results bordering on the insane, and ahistorical use, although this is still a issue to a degree in AE as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Laxplayer
I'm a bit aggressive as the Allies in the early months. And yes I've lost CVs, but no I haven't quit in my allied games.



THIS is the key to the whole thing. Play the game any way you want..., but be willing to live and play with the results of your choices! People who play "fast and loose" (with either side) and then quit because their "hair in the butt schemes" fail are the bane of PBEM. I wish there was a place to "report" them to other players so they could be ignored by serious players....



(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 18
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/20/2009 2:18:01 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 860
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
Don't know why someone would quits after losing a few carriers. In my PBEM game I lost 3-4 carriers and a boatload of CA, CL, and DD's to KB before late 42. By 43 I managed to take and lose Wake and had an entire division and a bunch of other units march off into captivity.

Yet I never felt it was a hopeless cause. The allieds get so much stuff you can easily continue to fight on. I marched up the DEI onto Japan-losing a bunch of ships and units in the process. Sure I may have lost, but it was still fun and worth playing till 45.

(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 19
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/20/2009 11:26:31 AM   
P.Hausser


Posts: 416
Joined: 8/16/2009
Status: offline
I prefer reliable players.

I have played 20 Uncommon Valor games, 5 WITP games and so far 0 AE games.

Of the 5 WITP Games, 4 of them lasted until after 1945, and I lost 3 of them as Japan late 45 due to Nukes and massive bombing over and over... ect and when approaching September +/- 1945 we agreed Japan would surrendered by now... I won 1 Game as the Allies once, and 1 Game ended as my opponent quit in mid 43.

This said, I don't claim to be any expert, nor any special in any way, just a interested and dedicated WITP player.


However, I always hate to start a game (don't misunderstand, I love the game) but I hate the fear of playing with someone I don't know, who might or might not be a reliable player... who might or might not quit... ect.. And then be dedicating a lot of time, calculations, paper charts and so on to the game without knowing if the other man stays in the game or not..

I feel I have been lucky with my opponents, but I have been a bit careful I guess about who I start a game with, and I have encouraged that we take a talk on the phone or something as the game goes on, I feel that communication is beneficial to the game, to discuss any issues or potential HR changes ect or whatever that might occur.


I just felt for presenting my perspective on things in this post I guess..



Relieble players is what I personally value the most.






< Message edited by P.Hausser -- 8/20/2009 11:31:41 AM >

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 20
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/20/2009 11:39:59 AM   
Sheytan


Posts: 830
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline
I will give this a spin. Its one thing to accept playing a game with a presumptive level playing field. It is quite another to play when its fairly clear the playing field is "flawed".

Frankly I dont wish to get into a pissing contest about what is and isnt flawed, and perceptions. Let me simplify, I was a board gamer when I was ten years old. My brother dusted me playing SPI's Arab/Israeli wars. I decided I wanted some revenge so I devoted myself to reading the rules inside and out, and proceeded to feed him his posterior thereafter.

In WITP a new player frankly was meat for those that understood the nuances of things like exploiting the BB TF gimmic by replenishing at low level ports, this is no longer possible.

To conclude, I would never have issue with someone who discovered that a "game aspect" as represented was so flawed that abused could upend a game.

IF you cannot understand that, well...im too old to argue. Good luck however in your future challenge of arms.

Virtute et armis.
quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

I prefer reliable players.

I have played 20 Uncommon Valor games, 5 WITP games and so far 0 AE games.

Of the 5 WITP Games, 4 of them lasted until after 1945, and I lost 3 of them as Japan late 45 due to Nukes and massive bombing over and over... ect and when approaching September +/- 1945 we agreed Japan would surrendered by now... I won 1 Game as the Allies once, and 1 Game ended as my opponent quit in mid 43.

This said, I don't claim to be any expert, nor any special in any way, just a interested and dedicated WITP player.


However, I always hate to start a game (don't misunderstand, I love the game) but I hate the fear of playing with someone I don't know, who might or might not be a reliable player... who might or might not quit... ect.. And then be dedicating a lot of time, calculations, paper charts and so on to the game without knowing if the other man stays in the game or not..

I feel I have been lucky with my opponents, but I have been a bit careful I guess about who I start a game with, and I have encouraged that we take a talk on the phone or something as the game goes on, I feel that communication is beneficial to the game, to discuss any issues or potential HR changes ect or whatever that might occur.


I just felt for presenting my perspective on things in this post I guess..



Relieble players is what I personally value the most.







(in reply to P.Hausser)
Post #: 21
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/20/2009 12:40:11 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

I will give this a spin. Its one thing to accept playing a game with a presumptive level playing field. It is quite another to play when its fairly clear the playing field is "flawed". To conclude, I would never have issue with someone who discovered that a "game aspect" as represented was so flawed that abused could upend a game.




I wouldn't object to "discussing" such an issue with an opponant with an eye to creating a "house rule". The original WITP certainly had a number of "abuses" that could be exploited be both sides. My only objection would be to a "unilateral" resignation without discussion. The numerous lists of "House Rules" posted in the original forum prove that compromise is possible.

(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 22
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/20/2009 1:08:38 PM   
P.Hausser


Posts: 416
Joined: 8/16/2009
Status: offline
I think that communication is very important, it does not need to be regarding exploits ect, I assume most individuals don't do exploitive things.
But it can simply be regarding House Rules I.E no Strat bombing out of China (As it Historicaly was not possible due to lack of Aviationfuel)
... or No Invations of Allution Islands during the winter months... or whatever...

Point is, it does not need to be things related to exploits..


It is my opinion that good communication improves chances of a good game, a game who lasts from 7th Dec 1941 until 1946.
I'm sure many of you have played many games without it, I personally anyway value it and consider will to compromise and to communicate as important for a good game. You never know what might occur in 4 years real time ahead... so why not establish the routine (solution) already at game start.

After reading on the forums I get the impressions that many games don't make it until 45, and I think a large part of the reason is due to lack of communication or similer.

< Message edited by P.Hausser -- 8/20/2009 1:24:04 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 23
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/20/2009 1:44:48 PM   
WITPPL


Posts: 289
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline


Btw: it IS lots of fun training and realocating and making all those cunning plans for late 42 moves.

Relaxed....

(in reply to P.Hausser)
Post #: 24
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/22/2009 12:41:55 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
I agree with Gravyhair-- sometimes Allied players risk much to gain little early in the game. No sense going "All-in" early in the tournament with a pair of 8's.

-As for playing till 1945, I would argue that most (and not all of course) games are decided by the end of 1942. Both players are jockeying for position and in my PBEM experience one side or the other is significantly stronger. At that point, how much "strategic challenge" is left in the game? If the Japanese are better off at the end of 1942 than they were historically, then the game can be quite exciting. Both sides may have their carriers left or coming as reinforcements, and you know the tension stays high. But its no fun honestly to play as the Allies and be winning by a large amount at the end of 1942, because then you are waiting for reinforcements as you essentially conduct a time consuming "mopping up" campaign. There's not much strategy left.

-Part of the issue here is regarding what I call "PBEM Fatigue": When one side is way ahead, the other sometimes get sloppy with his troops and/or sends turns back less frequently. With that in mind I usually mention to my PBEM opponents that I'll play to the end; but if the Allies are way ahead by Christmas 1942, its probably more interesting to start a new game. Also the "pen-pal" nature of the game reduces PBEM fatigue- if you enjoy who you are playing with and complimenting each other on your exploits, you may play on even though you are getting beaten up. I ended a game relatively early as the Allies once because my opponent bragged in the emails when he was winning, and sulked and complained if I scored a hit somewhere. Why should I invest hours and hours of planning and playing turns with someone like that? But I've also played with someone who is better than me but happy to both give and receive compliments and teach me as we play along. Now that game went on for years and we started another...


_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to WITPPL)
Post #: 25
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/22/2009 1:40:16 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6583
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Sorry.

Didn't read the whole thread.  I got to the part about the author congratulating himself on having several oppnenents quit on him (early).  He forgot to mention they were probably mis-matched to begin with, and he might as well been playing middle-schooler anyway.

I consider myself a capable WitP PBEM player.  But I got tired of the patronizing.

My first amusement was wonder how many PBEM games have been played in AE.

Two?  Three?  Oh, wait.  None?

But that's patronizing too.



-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 8/22/2009 1:41:10 PM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 26
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/22/2009 4:05:05 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7050
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Personally, I felt that one of the big flaws with the WITP campaign was the autovictory rule. It causes many of the Japanese players to risk everything for an early autovictory (to be fair it is tough for the Japanese to win otherwise). However, if the autovictory attempt falls short, the Japanese player is way over extended and probably going to go down big time. Some IJN players quit after missing the autovictory for this reason. Don't know if autovictory is still in AE but it should not be. The game should be based on VP alone with the Japanese winning more points for exceeding expectations and playing a good end game. The Japanese player should expect a tough go in 1945 but still should have a way to win the game.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 27
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/22/2009 5:51:53 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1919
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Personally, I felt that one of the big flaws with the WITP campaign was the autovictory rule. It causes many of the Japanese players to risk everything for an early autovictory (to be fair it is tough for the Japanese to win otherwise). However, if the autovictory attempt falls short, the Japanese player is way over extended and probably going to go down big time. Some IJN players quit after missing the autovictory for this reason. Don't know if autovictory is still in AE but it should not be. The game should be based on VP alone with the Japanese winning more points for exceeding expectations and playing a good end game. The Japanese player should expect a tough go in 1945 but still should have a way to win the game.


I think the intent of autovictory was to force the Allies to fight back in 1942, instead of pulling a sir robin. Politically we could not have completely abandoned Oz and hunkered down till 43.

A different, and IMO better way to do this was found in the old Witp board game. If the Allies failed to do certain things (such as maintain a merchant ship pipeline to Oz, starting in 4/42 IIRC) or if the Japanese were able to accomplish certain things (such as establishing an LCU with a LOC beyond a certain point in india, although this also triggered additional allied reinforcements) then the war was shortened by a predetermined amount (i.e., the end date of the game pulls in). The specific triggers and pull-ins had some quirks about them, but the basic concept could be used in a game like WitpAE. For example, if a week (?) goes by without a transport unloading US supply in Oz (or without a certain amount of supply being unloaded), the end date could pull in by N days. Same thing if the Japanese took certain locations. A Sir-Robin-ish Allied player would have to trade off the military risk of contesting early with the possible benefit.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 28
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/22/2009 9:54:45 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Personally, I felt that one of the big flaws with the WITP campaign was the autovictory rule. It causes many of the Japanese players to risk everything for an early autovictory (to be fair it is tough for the Japanese to win otherwise). However, if the autovictory attempt falls short, the Japanese player is way over extended and probably going to go down big time. Some IJN players quit after missing the autovictory for this reason. Don't know if autovictory is still in AE but it should not be. The game should be based on VP alone with the Japanese winning more points for exceeding expectations and playing a good end game. The Japanese player should expect a tough go in 1945 but still should have a way to win the game.



I agree. "Auto-victory" is garbage. If it's so "auto", why not play it out to the end and "prove it"? Leads to far too much "go for broke"(and quit if you don't make it) play. The only "victory" that should be available during play is "Ended by mutual consent" (and that doesn't mean one player whined and slowed play to a crawl and generally made the game a miserable experiance for everyone until he got his way).

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 29
RE: All Allied Players Must Read This - 8/23/2009 9:01:37 AM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1396
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline
I wonder how many games end due to one side declaring auto-victory and quit the game while the other would like to play on. I never heard about such an occurance so I doubt it's really an issue.

I understand that many games - by mutual consent - end after autovictory is achieved and I find the reasoning behind not bad at all. On the other hand I doubt that the implementation is robust enough to suit the many different ways till autovictory and all possible situations at the time of autovictory. It's just another option for players to play with if they want, or ignore it if they want.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> All Allied Players Must Read This Page: [1] 2   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

0.121