Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 9:39:31 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18144
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Could we consider our own "quiet China" approach? Basically, leave China alone.

Naw...



I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing.

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?

_____________________________


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 61
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 10:13:56 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Here's where I think we stand on settings/rules/etc. I'll edit the first post and paste these in, so we have one place to refer to.

Summary to date:

I believe there are no objections to any of these settings. Please speak up if I'm wrong. (It's been known to happen)

Realism Options:
FOW, Adv Weather, Allied DC, PDU, 12/7/41 Surprise ... all on.
Reliable USN torps OFF, Real RnD on, No Withdrawals OFF, replacements for both Fixed.

Hist Turn 1 OFF. We can work out any restrictions for orders on Turn 1 with a HR.

Game Options:
CR's on, Auto Subs off, TF and plane radius on, Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off. 2 day turns. Thanks for agreeing to this, Brothers. I think we'll all come to enjoy using them. Or, I'll have to provide beer to you all regularly.

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.

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


Proposed HR's:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: Japan allowed to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Allies will have the same option for the (restricted) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP. I think we are all agreed on this one.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China. Maybe still negotiating this one....

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. Need to refine and define this one a bit....

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. Still need to refine if Japan allowed to port strike Manila on turn 1, due to using 2 day turns.

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.

I believe there are no objections to this one, either.


6. Any additional proposed HR's, other than don't pull blatant gamey moves?

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 62
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 10:14:50 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


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.


Fair enough. We can consider this to be covered under "don't be gamey."

_____________________________

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 #: 63
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 10:19:06 PM   
scott1964


Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Forgot one HR. Each CV/CVE/CVL sunk by the other party will result in a case of beer sent to the other side.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


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

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 64
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 10:19:58 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Forgot one HR. Each CV/CVE/CVL sunk by the other party will result in a case of beer sent to the other side.


Mynok and I can settle those scores on our end rather conveniently since we live about 30 minutes apart.

_____________________________

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 #: 65
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 10:51:40 PM   
Mynok


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

I'll be sure to send over a case of HorsePiss Light when we lose a carrier........

_____________________________

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

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 66
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 11:13:28 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Just no Heffalump Lager.  

Edit: I have no idea why I found that so hysterical, but I'm laughing again a day later.

_____________________________

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 #: 67
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/14/2010 11:34:25 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12887
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Could we consider our own "quiet China" approach? Basically, leave China alone.

Naw...



I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing.

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?



Andre LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEESSSSSSS CHINA! I wish it would just go away. I'd give it to him if he'd trade me something nice for it!

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 68
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 3:23:19 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18144
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Could we consider our own "quiet China" approach? Basically, leave China alone.

Naw...



I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing.

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?



Andre LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEESSSSSSS CHINA! I wish it would just go away. I'd give it to him if he'd trade me something nice for it!

We'll trade you your precious Douglas MacArthur for China. Either *you* keep him or China, not both. Ha!

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 69
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 3:27:19 AM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Can we keep him commanding the base force in Nome? 

_____________________________

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 #: 70
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 1:24:23 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Heard back from the first person I PM'ed, and he's not in the loop as far as the DB patch is concerned.  Sent a second PM to The Man who will know.  Still waiting for a response. 

Meanwhile, let's take a look at what we have outstanding to settle.

2.  No Strat Bombing until '43 and none to targets in China until '44.  Are we cool with this one?  I am...

3.  Stratosphere Sweep... I'm fine with having a rule governing this, and fine with the numbers mentioned for the planes mentioned.  What could we use for other early AC, like Wildcats, and later arriving fighters?  Is there an alternative "rule of thumb" that we could use instead of different hard ceilings for different models, for instance based on the maneuver ratings?  Need suggestions here and I'll dig through the different threads on this topic for ideas.

4.  Need to define limits and exceptions for Allied TF's on turns 1 & 2 if port strikes other than Pearl Harbor are allowed.

Any additional HR suggestions?  Mynok, I believe the few we used in our CHS game are now irrelevant in AE.




_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 71
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 4:59:06 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12887
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Can we keep him commanding the base force in Nome? 



That's too close to home..Diego Garcia! (Unless we can bribe the Japanese to just shoot him! )

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 72
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 4:59:55 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12887
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Could we consider our own "quiet China" approach? Basically, leave China alone.

Naw...



I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing.

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?



Andre LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEESSSSSSS CHINA! I wish it would just go away. I'd give it to him if he'd trade me something nice for it!

We'll trade you your precious Douglas MacArthur for China. Either *you* keep him or China, not both. Ha!



What'll want to shoot him for us?

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 73
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 5:02:55 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
I think I may have found a good summary for our StratoSweep HR.  Check out TheElf's post #168 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=6&key=

"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. 

He's the game's lead air developer.  I'll buy what he's selling. 

Of course, like all HR's, if the situation warrents that the rule does not work any longer it can be changed.  Comments or objections?


_____________________________

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 #: 74
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 5:03:20 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Can we keep him commanding the base force in Nome? 



That's too close to home..Diego Garcia! (Unless we can bribe the Japanese to just shoot him! )


Port Stanley?

_____________________________

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 #: 75
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 5:48:17 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18144
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I think I may have found a good summary for our StratoSweep HR.  Check out TheElf's post #168 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=6&key=

"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. 

He's the game's lead air developer.  I'll buy what he's selling. 

Of course, like all HR's, if the situation warrents that the rule does not work any longer it can be changed.  Comments or objections?


That's pretty close to the spirit of the proposed HR. I'll look over the airplane DB some tonight and see if we can pick on a few examples.


_____________________________


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 76
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 5:55:00 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18144
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

Please see the Cap'n Mandrake / Sprior AAR. There are some xAK / PB gameyness issues that we need to have an understanding about moving forward.

I've seen increased use of xAKL, xAK and PBs used as 'picket ships' in the last several months of AARs. I'm not thrilled with this useage. That's one thing-looking out for surprise a/c carriers. Using them as precursors to SCTF arrival-soaking up ammo and torpedoes in order to deplete defenders' stores is quite another.

Are we in agreement that this sort of practice is to be frowned upon in our game?

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 77
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 5:57:05 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
I agree, Andre.  Pickets/lookouts, sure.  Intentional ammo sponges, no.

_____________________________

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 #: 78
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 6:11:17 PM   
thegreatwent


Posts: 3009
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
Ammo sponges are a sure no no. Altitude can be difficult to HR, the maneuver altitude solution works and is more simple then setting limits for each aircraft model

Any thoughts on the Mersing Gambit. Essentially the Japanese can land at Mersing Dec 7th barring a Force Z sacrifice. If that is done then Singapore falls to early IMO. I suggest that Mersing can be landed on no earlier than Dec, 8th.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 79
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 6:30:06 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
I'm on board with the maneuver rating rule for Sweeps.

Also do not intend to land at Mersing before the 8th.

I'm just fine with trawlers being used as pickets. This is quite normal actually in real life.

I agree that using small vessels as surface combat 'interference' is gamey. We should be clear on how that is to be judged, however, as there can be any number of legitimate instances where a small transport task force and a SC TF enter a hex containing unfriendlies at the same time. Indeed, IIRC, there have been quite a few complaints about the SC code where a SC TF watches obliviously while a transport TF in the same hex is mauled by an enemy SC TF.

Or how about running a gang of PB/G's into the hex along with the SC TF? Is that more, less or just as gamey?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to thegreatwent)
Post #: 80
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 6:33:26 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Or how about running a gang of PB/G's into the hex along with the SC TF? Is that more, less or just as gamey?


Seems like it would be to me. I can't imagine a purpose for sending them there, other than to sponge up some shells before the real fighting starts. At least I don't think they would have ever been considered to be used to attack a known enemy SC TF.

_____________________________

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 #: 81
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 6:34:28 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12887
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Gentlemen,

Please see the Cap'n Mandrake / Sprior AAR. There are some xAK / PB gameyness issues that we need to have an understanding about moving forward.

I've seen increased use of xAKL, xAK and PBs used as 'picket ships' in the last several months of AARs. I'm not thrilled with this useage. That's one thing-looking out for surprise a/c carriers. Using them as precursors to SCTF arrival-soaking up ammo and torpedoes in order to deplete defenders' stores is quite another.

Are we in agreement that this sort of practice is to be frowned upon in our game?



I've often used the AKL's as Trawlers (since they are the closet things we have) . So what is the difference between a picket line or a sponge? A lone AKL against the KB is going to be a bomb sponge. We have to tighten up our definations on this (or at least use small and simple words so that I understand it).

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 82
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 6:38:17 PM   
Mynok


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

The player attempts to sneak a critical ground unit into a port under the danger of air attack. To reduce risk of casualties, the transports are split into single ships TFs following a PB/G SC TF. A full-fledged SC TF waits at another port in reaction range with react set to on.

It would be just about impossible to distinguish 'gamey' from 'non-gamey' here were an enemy SC TF to show up at the port and fight.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 83
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 6:56:34 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
To me, gamey is about intent.  I see no intent to send PB's in to attack a real SC TF, with the intent of using up their ammunition so they can then be pounded by a second SC TF following the PB's.  The scenario Mynok laid out is what I envision PB/G's being designed for, to escort transports and provide some gunfire support for them. 

Steve, in my mind, there's nothing gamey about a lone picket.  Even a string of pickets in a line, with a few hexes between is fine to me.  Filling a group of 4-6 hexes each with a lone picket, on the line of approach for an enemy TF would be gamey. 


_____________________________

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 #: 84
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 7:01:29 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3041
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
My 2 cents and why.

Rules are of.
1. No resource/factory bombing on either side inside mainland China's borders, as China per map.
No comments needed really.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. To avoid early oil bombing and more.
Basicly to avoid the sec that oil bases fall u see the B-17D stra bombing those oils resources. Can it be defended against sorta still feels sorta gamey too me. It also stop jap from after PM falls early as it always does, to start bombing australian reocurces for easy VPs. No figthers to stop this and again to me this feels a gamey way to get VPs. So it goes both ways. By 43 both sides should have forces in place to defend against this nulilfying the HR.

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

4. KB cannot hunt the allied CVs during turn 1, if playing non historic turn.
No comments really.

5. No sub invasions.
I think there is no need for this any more, as far as i hear.

6. Army 4E engine bombers cannot naval attack below 10k ft. Naval 4e not below 7k.
U can always discuss the height here.....'

7. Paratroopers cannot be split to make numerous attacks, one formation for one target.
Hench also gota have gatered unit before new para landing can take place.

It was my experience that when sub invasions became HR restricted ppl started using para for the same. So this rule.
Initially i had a prep point restiction too. Para drops was complicated and toke preperation so i think a certain prep level is historic but some time what the hell. Any how overall idea is force a more combined use of para's and not 1 squad invades all over the map.


9. Cant resize air units other than default changes with the following exceptions. Air units native to carriers can fill up to max of carrier capacity. As long as the combined air units for the carrier never exceds carriers capacity whether or not they are actually on the carrier. (cant unload some and max remaining and so on)
The 3 airplane japanease units can go onto the airgroup less CVEs and resize to fill those, but only for operational purposes. Cant be training and if unloaded most resize back to original size.
Marine corsair squadrons cant operate from allied carriers until the first historical unit does so.

Simply to avoid any sorta use of the resize option to create large training squadrons or operational for that matter.
MichaelM was clear IMHO that the rule was to allow for different make up of teh airgroups on carrier and filling those up to capacity. The jap CVE that are in need of air groups should ofc be allowed to have that and resize to fill. Nada else.


10. No, LCU bombardment other than for recon purposes, that isnt done along side infantry attacks.

This rule is prolly a bit surprising, but IMHO there is sound reasoning behind this.
Design team changed art to work along side infantry attacks and nerfed the LCU only bombardment damage. I agree in that, but it seems to me that it had an unintended effect or at leased an effect in that IMHO can be used gamingly.
The supply used by a defender replying to bombardments the same as pre this rule change. Im old day that wasnt a problem as the attacker toke counter battery casulties so it wasnt free. Now u dont or the are much less so its more or less for free to do.
So u can use this to make bombardments with 1 art unit ur self using very little supply while any unit of the attacker units in combat mode responds automaticly.
BigJ62 confirmed that the supply usage is actually after cleaning the number from eng usage is near 4 times as high as if they attacking units hadnt been attacked with both art and aircrafts, in the example i gave him. While less than what i first thot its still IMHO way to much and can used for that purpose only.
This if used every turn can make siege type situasion go much faster as in 4 times sinc when ur out of supply ur dead.

Now the counter arguement is ok then u should just put ur units on reserve not combat and then they wont respond and supply usage isnt higher.
Ok but what then if the attack attacks when ur units (the max 75%) is on reserve and ur rolls on whether the units will participate in the combat or not are missed. Ehhh, u can have as little as 25% of ur AV and might very well just lose out right.

This means IMHO that landcombat is now a question of playing tic tac toe. Which turns to place units in combat mode to anticipate attacks and which to put on reserve to "counter" bombardments.
That the abstraction level of landcombat is now a question of playing tic tac toe botheres me to say the least.
It leave art only bombardments, since it doesnt do casulties in bombardment with 2 useage. First is recon which is perfectly fine with me as there isnt any other recon options in game really and secondly that is draining defenders supply.
IMHO art shouldnt have that effect and its an oversight back when the art rules was nerfed/changed.


My ehhh ok 4 cents...

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/15/2010 7:32:20 PM >

(in reply to thegreatwent)
Post #: 85
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 7:08:18 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3615
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I think this wins the 'longest aar thread before it actually became an actual aar' award. Having said that I'm looking forward to it.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 86
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 7:33:39 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I think this wins the 'longest aar thread before it actually became an actual aar' award. Having said that I'm looking forward to it.


I couldn't find a BAR section to open it in.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 87
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 7:37:14 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18144
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I think this wins the 'longest aar thread before it actually became an actual aar' award. Having said that I'm looking forward to it.


I couldn't find a BAR section to open it in.



_____________________________


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 88
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 7:43:49 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12887
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-DC-GM-WA-NE-IL ?
Status: offline
Are you guys SURE that you are not lawyers? If we get anymore into it . I'm going to expect a demand for alimoony next!

_____________________________

"Geezerhood is a state of mind, attained by being largely out of yours". AW1Steve

"Quit whining and play the game. Or go home". My 7th grade baseball coach. It applies well to WITP AE players.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 89
RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! - 9/15/2010 7:45:04 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16146
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Rasmus, thanks for the input. I particularly like your reasoning for several of the HR's you used.

I think we have actually covered most of these.

1 + 2 are combined in our rule, that I think we have agreed on.
3. I like the wording of your version better than what we have agreed to. It covers the example of US West Coast LCU's being assigned to an unrestricted air HQ that is also under West Coast command. Would need to pay the full PP cost to transfer the LCU to SW Pac or South Pac for example to ship it out. Gentlemen, shall we adopt this version?
4. Easily included in our RoE for Turns 1+2, but already a defacto standing rule.
5+7. Covered under our "no gamey moves" blanket policy.
6. We don't currently have an equivalent rule, and not sure if we need one. I am fine with one, if desired. Thoughts from the other players on this?
8. Hey! You can't count to 10! You skipped 8.
9. Already covered, but good rationale provided by Rasmus here.
10. I understand the intent here. I know I am still naive, but I am not sure we need this rule in our game. Thoughts and comments?

Good stuff, Rasmus!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War! Page: <<   < prev  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

0.117