Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Matrix Games Forums

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Matrix Games / Slitherine / AGEOD are recruiting AGAIN!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

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 >> After Action Reports >> Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 5:09:18 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

The Rules of Engagement have been settled. Operational planning has begun on the part of the Japanese. The Allies, AW1Steve and USS America are both having more rum punch.

Starting with patch level 1.0.4.1106g - Jul 6 2010. Possibly waiting for DB patch, if avail within 2 weeks.

Scenario 1 is what we are playing.

Game settings:

Realism Options:
FOW on
Adv Weather on
Allied DC on
PDU on
12/7/41 Surprise on.
Reliable USN torps OFF
Real RnD on
No Withdrawals OFF
Reinforcements for both sides Fixed.
Hist Turn 1 OFF

Game Options:
CR's on
Auto Subs off
TF and plane radius on
Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off.
2 day turns.

Preferences:
Show combat animations, summaries, and show clouds all on.

House Rules:

1. Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for any purposes to max 4 hexes from the Thai border. Same for Indian troops within 4 hexes of Indian border. Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 against targets in China.

3. Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf: "Simply: no fighter sweeps higher then the ALT with the second best MVR value" He later states that there is no need to limit CAP "target" or "patrol" altitude for various reasons.

4. Turn 1 & 2: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created anywhere except Manila. Manila is limited to having 50% of each ship type in port ordered to sea. Not "keep 10 PT's in port and ship out 10 DD's". Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). Japan will not hunt down US CV TF's on turn 1 & 2.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.

Clarification on the intent of this one: The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.

Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question. CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.

Hey, Steve, after I finish this next drink, what do you say we think about making some plans?

< Message edited by USS America -- 9/16/2010 7:37:32 PM >

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

Post #: 1

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 5:11:41 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

Here's what I had for the HRs (modified to suit current 'patch' numbers):

Patch IV AE: EDIT

Scenario 1
PDU on
non-historical turn
Japanese surprise on
TWO day turns EDIT
USN historical (read: defective) torpedoes
+/- 15 day historical ship arrival
Advanced weather effects

HRs:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: I'm going to allow myself to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Steve will have the same option for the (foreign) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China.

3. Reasonable altitude settings for a/c to avoid "Stratosphere sweep" phenomena. In general, I'll rarely fly Oscars or Zeroes higher than 25,000 feet, Nates will be restricted to 15,000 feet. Hurricanes will be OK to the higher altitude, whilest P39s and P40s will be restricted to 15,000 feet and 20,000 feet, respectively.

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.

Not many house rules, really. We tend to play a 'gentleman's game'-if something is irreversably borked, we agree to change the gameplay. Not afraid of house rules as a patch in the interim.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 9/14/2010 5:12:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 2

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 5:18:41 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Hi guys. Just wanted to get this started as a place holder so we can start working on the Rules of Engagement.

CB had a list of HR's that he and Steve started with in their previous game that I think would be a fine starting point for HR negotiations. CB, if you could post them here, that would be great. As far as I'm concerned, any and all HR's are re-negotiable after the game is underway if the situation calls for it. I can play with a long list of them, or none. I just need any we use to be in writing so I can refer to the list and not screw up while playing.

For game options, I REALLY want to use 2 day turns. If you guys are dead set against it, that's fine, but I think we can all easily adjust to using them in very few turns.

I know nothing about the Japanese OOB for land, sea, or air. I know they get more toys than we do at the start, and we get more toys than them later. I'd like to use Fixed Reinforcements, so arriving task groups don't have escorts scattered over a 1 or 2 month period.

I think everyone would be able to work with starting the game with all replacements and expansions off. Pretty much SOP these days.

I'll suggest the following, but can accept any option for them:
Realism Options:
FOW, Adv Weather, Allied DC, PDU, Hist Turn 1, 12/7/41 Surprise ... all on.
Reliable USN torps OFF, Real RnD on, No Withdrawals OFF, replacements for both Fixed.

Hist Turn 1 OFF is very common, and I'm fine with that, too. We can work out any restrictions for orders on Turn 1.

Game Options:
CR's on, Auto Subs off, TF and plane radius on, Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off. 2 day turns.

Preferences:
I believe the only one's that are not completely independent for each of us are Show combat animations, summaries, and show clouds. I'd prefer to have them all on.

Scenario 1 is what I presume we are playing. I know Steve has a lot more actual playing experience than I do, so you Bad Guys really shouldn't need the extra goodies in Scenario 2.

For now, the only other thing I'd like to bring up for discussion is the possibility of a Database patch being released. I've heard rumors of such, and seen hints, but don't know how soon it might be. I know plenty of corrections have been made over the last year since release. Picking this up could be worth waiting a short while for, since it will only take effect with new starts. Any code patches, like fixing the Attack Bombers, have never in the past and should not require a restart. We can pick up any of them as we go. So, my question is, should we consider holding off on the actual start of the game until the Db update is released, depending on timeframe of course?

I'll shut up and listen now.

Please and thank you! (trying to get into the spirit of animus necessary for customary disemboweling of one's opponents.)

There's nothing that you've said here that's a show-stopper for me, Mike.

I say start without the DB update, but am flexible either way. No sense putting off auto-victory any longer than Mynok and I need to. We should have auto-victory stitched up nicely by the time the patch comes out anyways.

_____________________________

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 3

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 5:23:28 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

That settles the question of the DB update quite nicely.

Sounds good to me. I'll take my lumps without the update.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 4

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 5:45:21 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12069
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I would prefer to wait for the update as it will take me some time to get a handle on things for the first turn. I'll go ahead and start working on it in the meantime, so that when it does arrive, it will be a simple matter to replay my orders into a new game.

This assumes that the DB patch is truly close at hand. If we are talking a month away, then let's go ahead an start. If it is in the next week or two, lets wait.

I've never played 2 day turns, but I'm sure I'll adjust...hopefully without having to learn any lessons the hard way.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 5

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:10:49 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch. 2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 6

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:14:30 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Hi guys. Just wanted to get this started as a place holder so we can start working on the Rules of Engagement.

CB had a list of HR's that he and Steve started with in their previous game that I think would be a fine starting point for HR negotiations. CB, if you could post them here, that would be great. As far as I'm concerned, any and all HR's are re-negotiable after the game is underway if the situation calls for it. I can play with a long list of them, or none. I just need any we use to be in writing so I can refer to the list and not screw up while playing.

For game options, I REALLY want to use 2 day turns. If you guys are dead set against it, that's fine, but I think we can all easily adjust to using them in very few turns.

I know nothing about the Japanese OOB for land, sea, or air. I know they get more toys than we do at the start, and we get more toys than them later. I'd like to use Fixed Reinforcements, so arriving task groups don't have escorts scattered over a 1 or 2 month period.

I think everyone would be able to work with starting the game with all replacements and expansions off. Pretty much SOP these days.

I'll suggest the following, but can accept any option for them:
Realism Options:
FOW, Adv Weather, Allied DC, PDU, Hist Turn 1, 12/7/41 Surprise ... all on.
Reliable USN torps OFF, Real RnD on, No Withdrawals OFF, replacements for both Fixed.

Hist Turn 1 OFF is very common, and I'm fine with that, too. We can work out any restrictions for orders on Turn 1.

Game Options:
CR's on, Auto Subs off, TF and plane radius on, Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off. 2 day turns.

Preferences:
I believe the only one's that are not completely independent for each of us are Show combat animations, summaries, and show clouds. I'd prefer to have them all on.

Scenario 1 is what I presume we are playing. I know Steve has a lot more actual playing experience than I do, so you Bad Guys really shouldn't need the extra goodies in Scenario 2.

For now, the only other thing I'd like to bring up for discussion is the possibility of a Database patch being released. I've heard rumors of such, and seen hints, but don't know how soon it might be. I know plenty of corrections have been made over the last year since release. Picking this up could be worth waiting a short while for, since it will only take effect with new starts. Any code patches, like fixing the Attack Bombers, have never in the past and should not require a restart. We can pick up any of them as we go. So, my question is, should we consider holding off on the actual start of the game until the Db update is released, depending on timeframe of course?

I'll shut up and listen now.

Please and thank you! (trying to get into the spirit of animus necessary for customary disemboweling of one's opponents.)

There's nothing that you've said here that's a show-stopper for me, Mike.

I say start without the DB update, but am flexible either way. No sense putting off auto-victory any longer than Mynok and I need to. We should have auto-victory stitched up nicely by the time the patch comes out anyways.

I absolutely hate them all!

So when do we start?

(I just had to say that as a matter of principal, in keeping with my house-rule hating tradition!

).

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 7

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:15:35 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

Full disclosure, I'm going to be on the road for the last week of this month. (See "Travel" thread).

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 8

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:16:15 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.� 2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Did you promise a good bottle of single malt?

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 9

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:20:29 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.� 2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Did you promise a good bottle of single malt?

Steve has made a good point, although not in the way he intended...

Amongst ourselves, shall we have a payoff bet of sorts? The (within reason) beverage of choice option for the 'winners' sounds nice. How shall we define this? Are the others interested in this?

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 10

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:25:47 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

Andre, can I ask you for a little bit of clarification on some of these? Questions in bold...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

HRs:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: I'm going to allow myself to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Steve will have the same option for the (foreign) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP. So for instance, Indian troops assigned to the restricted Indian commands could march to places in Burma without paying PP, but no farther?

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China. Does this include no strategic bombing FROM China to other bases outside China in 1943?

3. Reasonable altitude settings for a/c to avoid "Stratosphere sweep" phenomena. In general, I'll rarely fly Oscars or Zeroes higher than 25,000 feet, Nates will be restricted to 15,000 feet. Hurricanes will be OK to the higher altitude, whilest P39s and P40s will be restricted to 15,000 feet and 20,000 feet, respectively. I'm cool with some rule to govern this, but I don't know enough about the different types of AC to know what's "reasonable" for them, other than P39's had very poor higher altitude performance. Can I request we come up with some "hard" numbers, even if there are a few listed exceptions, so I can just refer to my list before blowing this one out my rear end through ignorance? Also, would this just govern Sweep missions or others as well?

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units. I have not messed around with this function at all. What type of limitations are we talking about here?

Not many house rules, really. We tend to play a 'gentleman's game'-if something is irreversably borked, we agree to change the gameplay. Not afraid of house rules as a patch in the interim.

I'm always flexible with just about any HR's. I just need to know for sure what I can and can't do.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 11

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:26:38 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Full disclosure, I'm going to be on the road for the last week of this month. (See "Travel" thread).

One of the beauties of having a partner.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 12

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:30:41 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.� 2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Did you promise a good bottle of single malt?

Steve has made a good point, although not in the way he intended...

Amongst ourselves, shall we have a payoff bet of sorts? The (within reason) beverage of choice option for the 'winners' sounds nice. How shall we define this? Are the others interested in this?

I'm game. It's been a long time since I looked at or cared about the victory conditions in game. Since I still am one of those kooks who think of this as a game, I'd be willing to use those as a measuring stick to see who gets the next round.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 13

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:46:03 PM

scott1964

Posts: 3993
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me

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

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/
http://suspenseandmystery.webs.com/

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 14

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:47:12 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Andre, can I ask you for a little bit of clarification on some of these? Questions in bold...

HRs:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: I'm going to allow myself to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Steve will have the same option for the (foreign) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP. So for instance, Indian troops assigned to the restricted Indian commands could march to places in Burma without paying PP, but no farther?

I've thought it within reason for the RTA to assist in the liberation of Pegu and, argueably Rangoon. I could see an argument for the Indian restricted troops used in a reverse operation, provided that their use was limited to within 4 hexes march (therefore, no Ceylon) of the Burmese / Indian border. That's my take.

quote:

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China. Does this include no strategic bombing FROM China to other bases outside China in 1943?

I don't see why you couldn't bomb other countries outside of China from China in 1943...

quote:

3. Reasonable altitude settings for a/c to avoid "Stratosphere sweep" phenomena. In general, I'll rarely fly Oscars or Zeroes higher than 25,000 feet, Nates will be restricted to 15,000 feet. Hurricanes will be OK to the higher altitude, whilest P39s and P40s will be restricted to 15,000 feet and 20,000 feet, respectively. I'm cool with some rule to govern this, but I don't know enough about the different types of AC to know what's "reasonable" for them, other than P39's had very poor higher altitude performance. Can I request we come up with some "hard" numbers, even if there are a few listed exceptions, so I can just refer to my list before blowing this one out my rear end through ignorance? Also, would this just govern Sweep missions or others as well?

I haven't heard of problems with "stratosphere ESCORT" or "stratosphere BOMBING" missions, so my comments were in reference to SWEEP function.

I don't know if I have hard and fast numbers. I think that ALL fighters should be lower than 25,000 feet. For that matter, I think that heavy bombers (or medium bombers, whatever) should be at or below that too.

Mostly, I'm 'eyeballing' the PLANE INFORMATION and judging from the different altitude bands where the most impressive drop off is. For the Oscar, it's above 30k. For the P-39, there's a major functional decrease between 10-15k. I don't think the P-38 demonstrates significant degradation below 30k. This is mostly a problem with early war fighters, IMO.

We can review the data and come up with suggested 'hard' numbers, if you'd like

quote:

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units. I have not messed around with this function at all. What type of limitations are we talking about here?

The IJNAF, in particular, start off with a fair number of ground-based fighter, bomber and recon groups. An aggressive IJN player COULD strip an a/c carrier whilest in port of all planes, land an IJN carrier-capable group on the ship, select "Expand to fit ship" and immediately have a 48, 64 or 72-sized fighter group. He then disembarks this huge fighter group and uses it for IJNAF training thereafter. Bingo-treble one's training capacity.

The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.

Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question.

CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.

quote:

I'm always flexible with just about any HR's. I just need to know for sure what I can and can't do.

No worries, Mike. I'll call, "CHEATER!" early and often if I need to!

_____________________________

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 15

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:47:19 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

We have a fan.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to scott1964)

Post #: 16

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:50:09 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.

Oh no! You're going to do this to me again , aren't you CB?

I don't suppose you consider an exemption for Manila and Hong Kong to allow a chance of an evacuation?

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 17

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 6:51:54 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.

Oh no! You're going to do this to me again , aren't you CB

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 18

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:01:37 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

I think he's fearing for our Manila based subs.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 19

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:01:46 PM

Lifer

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/8/2003
From: Caprica
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second.
Ardant du Picq

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 20

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:08:40 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

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

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lifer)

Post #: 21

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:09:06 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

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...

_____________________________

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 22

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:11:07 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 23

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:13:29 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 24

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:17:02 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15237
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 25

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:30:36 PM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

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.

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

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 26

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:32:37 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 27

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:42:24 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12069
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

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

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 28

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 7:46:47 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 12039
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 29

RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 8:21:34 PM

scott1964

Posts: 3993
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Do like I do most of my games is hit both Manila and Pearl.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me

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

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/
http://suspenseandmystery.webs.com/

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

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

0.375