Matrix Games Forums

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 WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics

 
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 >> Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 3:45:08 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1576
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
The issue of "gameyness" is pretty big to me as I don't like the idea of doing things, even though allowed by the game engine, that would not have been feasible or reasonable in real life. Most issues of gamey tactics center around the Japanese player using the * TFs and paratroopers to exploit weaknesses in the Allied defenses. These weaknesses would not have necessarily been known by the Japanese at the start of the war, but in the game, we are gifted with absolute knowledge of the oppossing side's initial deployment. As a result, many players institue house rules to limit such exploitation.

However, to my knowledge, there has been little discussion of the potential gamey tactics the Allied player may use as a result of his knowledge of the Japanese initial deployment. For example, the Allied player knows that the Japanese start with a TF loaded up with troops prepped for Miri. As a result, he can anticipate the probable invasion of Miri taking place on or about Dec 10 and send Force Z (or the more-feared Boise) to intercept. This is just one of many potential cases. My point is, the Allied player can almost perfectly predict where the Japanese will land in the first few days based on his knowledge of the Japanese LCUs prepped for specific objectives. To counter this, all the Japanese player can do is change objectives (and waste those valuable prep points), delay invasions and/or land unprepped troops on alternate objectives.

Any thoughts? House rule suggestions?

Post #: 1
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 3:47:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13796
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
As the Jap amphib bonus means they dont suffer losses in the same way from landing under prepped then I dont think its huge issue

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 2
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 3:54:48 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1576
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

As the Jap amphib bonus means they dont suffer losses in the same way from landing under prepped then I dont think its huge issue


Good point - it probably won't really have an effect on disruption caused by amphibious landing. However, on the next turn when it attacks the defending Allied units, it won't get the same AV bonus due to the prep points. As a result, the Japanese player has to bring more troops to get the job done, troops that could have been bound for some other destination. Consequently, the Japanese advance will be significantly slowed.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 3
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 4:02:22 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Hmm, that needing more troops would slow the offensive is an assumption which may be true but which also isn't necessarily true.

Focus on points of strategic importance can allow the bypassing of non-essential points, keeping the operational tempo high and increasing the pace of advance. Don't forget the Japanese were actually pretty slow in quite a few areas in real life.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 4
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 4:15:41 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1576
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, that needing more troops would slow the offensive is an assumption which may be true but which also isn't necessarily true.

Focus on points of strategic importance can allow the bypassing of non-essential points, keeping the operational tempo high and increasing the pace of advance. Don't forget the Japanese were actually pretty slow in quite a few areas in real life.


True, but the more troops commited to one "point of strategic importance" means fewer troops devoted to the next "point of strategic importance". So, to an extent, the advance will be slowed.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 4:23:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25307
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

The issue of "gameyness" is pretty big to me as I don't like the idea of doing things, even though allowed by the game engine, that would not have been feasible or reasonable in real life. Most issues of gamey tactics center around the Japanese player using the * TFs and paratroopers to exploit weaknesses in the Allied defenses. These weaknesses would not have necessarily been known by the Japanese at the start of the war, but in the game, we are gifted with absolute knowledge of the oppossing side's initial deployment. As a result, many players institue house rules to limit such exploitation.

However, to my knowledge, there has been little discussion of the potential gamey tactics the Allied player may use as a result of his knowledge of the Japanese initial deployment. For example, the Allied player knows that the Japanese start with a TF loaded up with troops prepped for Miri. As a result, he can anticipate the probable invasion of Miri taking place on or about Dec 10 and send Force Z (or the more-feared Boise) to intercept. This is just one of many potential cases. My point is, the Allied player can almost perfectly predict where the Japanese will land in the first few days based on his knowledge of the Japanese LCUs prepped for specific objectives. To counter this, all the Japanese player can do is change objectives (and waste those valuable prep points), delay invasions and/or land unprepped troops on alternate objectives.

Any thoughts? House rule suggestions?





Best way to get around issues like this is to pick your opponents carefully to ensure that the "kind" of game you want to play is in sync. Some players prefer no holds barred type games where there are few to no house rules whilst others want a game that makes them feel more like they are playing closer to history. It's a thorny topic and good communication and flexability after game start (if an issue comes up) is essential.

Ultimatley the game is indeed a game and there's no way to prevent some tactics that while perfectly valid can be seen as benefiting from hindsight if not gamey. Since Japan starts the game on the offensive, and because well.....its JAPAN.....much of the attention on gameyness and hindsight gets focused on the Player one side but if anything, Player 2 has the better benefit as they can afford to make mistakes.....player one can't. Its the price we pay for virtual complete and instant control...the staple and hallmark of Grigsby style Operational games. The contrast to real life military ops has been made particularily stark to me in recent days as i'm reading the latest Battle of Britian book, which actually is more a book about the Allies war against Germany up too and including the Battle of Britian. Its supposed to be an air book but goes into great detail on the Blitzkreig into France and really helps explain why an army as massive and potentially powerful as France's seemed to do virtually NOTHING even during the most critical and vulnerable moments of Gremany's armored offensive. Were this battle to play out using WitP AE or stock..........such paralysis that was caused by poor communiations, top heavy chains of command and lack of intel would be non-existant and the Germans would never reach the channel....at least not without alot more delays and bloody losses.

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 6/3/2011 4:25:43 PM >

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 6
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 4:58:20 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8538
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)


This point isn't made often enough. So much forum bandwidth going over and over and OVER the percieved sins of 1942 on the gaminess spectrum, when so few players ever see much beyond that. A shame.

As an Allied player who has gotten to late 1944 twice, and August 1945 once, I say let the Japanese do player do ANYTHING he wants in 1942. Every decision he makes has a counter and unless there's an auto-vic nothing, absolutley nothing, the Japanese side can do in 1942 will matter by mid-1945. The Allied whiners just need to play long enough to get there and see what a Thor's Hammer they will wield.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 7
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 5:04:05 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 845
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: online
quote:

"Best way to get around issues like this is to pick your opponents carefully to ensure that the "kind" of game you want to play is in sync." - Nikademus


Yep, I think it's just that simple. In my PBEM game with Dr.Hal, we talked a bit about what we wanted the game to be. For us, a game closer to 'historical' capabilities would be better than a game that allowed ahistorical capabilities to either side. That allowed us to establish a minimal set of house rules that reflected that goal. Had one of us wanted to play a game of 'anything goes', we would have simply found another opponent that matched our playing styles. Finding a likeminded opponent is, IMHO, better than any set of house rules.


(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 8
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 5:32:19 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Up until recently I thought two house rules were necessary in the game:  (1) no movement of units across national borders without paying PP, and (2) no strategic bombing in China until 1944.

I am now pretty sure that the first of these isn't necessary, and an argument can be made that the second isn't necessary either, though I'm not positive on that one yet.

All the other house rules can be dismissed, as there are direct counters and indirect counters that can negate the "abuse" or the abuse really isn't that big a deal.

I would certainly consider playing a no house rules game against any decent opponent, with only strat bombing in China giving me any real concern.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 9
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 6:04:58 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 845
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: online
quote:

"Up until recently I thought two house rules were necessary in the game: (1) no movement of units across national borders without paying PP, and (2) no strategic bombing in China until 1944.

I am now pretty sure that the first of these isn't necessary, and an argument can be made that the second isn't necessary either, though I'm not positive on that one yet." - Canoerebel


CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 10
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 6:31:06 PM   
AlaskanWarrior


Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)


This point isn't made often enough. So much forum bandwidth going over and over and OVER the percieved sins of 1942 on the gaminess spectrum, when so few players ever see much beyond that. A shame.

As an Allied player who has gotten to late 1944 twice, and August 1945 once, I say let the Japanese do player do ANYTHING he wants in 1942. Every decision he makes has a counter and unless there's an auto-vic nothing, absolutley nothing, the Japanese side can do in 1942 will matter by mid-1945. The Allied whiners just need to play long enough to get there and see what a Thor's Hammer they will wield.

However, if you give the Japanese player too much a free hand they can 'win' the game and thus there will be no Thor's hammer.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 11
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 6:40:43 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2054
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
I have to agree with Paul (pws1225) my opponent, having a forearmed intelligence concept AND EXPLOITING THAT EXCESSIVELY takes the "fun" out of the system for us. As the allied player I know force Z is walking into a death trap if history is repeated and that Wake is going to fall, but for the first turn at least, one has to hold on to that course. Why you might ask? Well if you play the historical game (not Ironman et.al.) then you are trying to compliment history, although not repeat it. I elected to get my fighters out of Wake, but not on the first few turns, only after the "situation" developed and it was reasonable to assume that SOME commanders were aware that Wake, like Guam, was a lost cause (so why throw away a good squadron?). The pre-knowledge is an advantage on both sides, but for us that doesn't cancel out things and allow for "anything goes" as, simply put, that take the "fun" out of it. As Nikademus rightly points out, the house rules are usually pre-established by the opponent you choose to do battle with, not really by any subsequent discussions. That's not to throw stones at those that choose to play with no holes barred, its just not for me, or for Paul if I understand him correctly.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 12
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 7:03:40 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9773
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225
CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?


For each punch there is a counter-punch and then a counter-counter-punch and so on.

If we dispense with the "No Restricted Units Across Borders" house rule, Japan will shift the Manchuria garrison to China. The Allies can counter effectively by shifting the India garrison into Burma and possibly thence into southern China, giving Japan fits. Japan can counter that move in certain ways, but the Allies may be able to thwart Japan's counter effectively. It's a complicated equation not subject to easy analysis, and a better player can beat the lesser player whichever side he fights from in these situations, but the Allies are by no means defenseless when facing such a strategim.

See Nemo's "Salutations and Solicitations" AAR for an example of an Allied player doing this.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 6/3/2011 7:06:03 PM >

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 13
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 8:31:20 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3687
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225
CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?


For each punch there is a counter-punch and then a counter-counter-punch and so on.

If we dispense with the "No Restricted Units Across Borders" house rule, Japan will shift the Manchuria garrison to China. The Allies can counter effectively by shifting the India garrison into Burma and possibly thence into southern China, giving Japan fits. Japan can counter that move in certain ways, but the Allies may be able to thwart Japan's counter effectively. It's a complicated equation not subject to easy analysis, and a better player can beat the lesser player whichever side he fights from in these situations, but the Allies are by no means defenseless when facing such a strategim.

See Nemo's "Salutations and Solicitations" AAR for an example of an Allied player doing this.


Not a good example. Too many factors are no longer relevant.

1. Great disparity in player strength
2. Change to supply movement through Burma
3. Manchukuo was not gutted
4. Japanese player based all his China dispositions all power of artillery which was neutered before he could take advantage, leaving him greatly behind the curve in term or reprioritising
5. Japan never pursued an integrated strategy, its actions in China were not coordinated with overall offensive
6. Japan approached entire game as a test bed for disparate game features
7. Too much free intel given by Japan (see point 6)

Alfred

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 14
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 8:45:32 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Best way to get around issues like this is to pick your opponents carefully to ensure that the "kind" of game you want to play is in sync. Some players prefer no holds barred type games where there are few to no house rules whilst others want a game that makes them feel more like they are playing closer to history. It's a thorny topic and good communication and flexability after game start (if an issue comes up) is essential.



Agree with Nick 100% on this..., it's the "key" to enjoying a 1500+ turn experiance. Different players want different things from the experiance, and your best bet to find someone who wants the same things you do is to communicate with them extensively BEFORE you start. No way of playing is wrong against the right opponant..., but you need to be sure that you are both on the same page as to "what goes" and "what blows".

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 9:00:02 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3687
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
It is all well and good to advise picking a compatible opponent but some of the regulars are quite competitive. I can well envisage a player wanting very much to test their skills against a strong player even though they are not really compatible in terms of both sharing the same outlook about what is OK in the game.

Alfred

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 16
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 9:23:17 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 2771
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: online
You also need to be prepared to adjust when something goes screwy. My worthy opponent in one of my Grand Campaign games found he had a large number of convoys coming from Aden to Karachi and I had some Subs in the area that would, automatically, attack each convoy as they entered the map. He hadn't adjusted with waypoints the entrance location of each convoy. I just stumbled onto this, and was very surprised that I was sinking a large xAK or TK every day, some days more than one! Talk about happy hunting grounds.

After being made aware of this, I adjusted my patrol areas to give him a little breathing room from the arbitrary entry point for his convoys, but not too far that I didn't have a chance to detect and attack a convoy. This was a gentleman's agreement and I am suffering from it on the India/Burma border, but the game is much more fun this way.

I am one of those players that is in it for the long haul, after all I play Federation & Empire, so I plan on getting to the end of my game with rjopel as the Japanese regardless of my condition at the time. It will be interesting to see us get there. We are just now finishing up 1942 and about to start 1943. I shudder at the coming increase of his torpedo effectiveness.


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 17
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 9:36:56 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3687
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

You also need to be prepared to adjust when something goes screwy. My worthy opponent in one of my Grand Campaign games found he had a large number of convoys coming from Aden to Karachi and I had some Subs in the area that would, automatically, attack each convoy as they entered the map. He hadn't adjusted with waypoints the entrance location of each convoy. I just stumbled onto this, and was very surprised that I was sinking a large xAK or TK every day, some days more than one! Talk about happy hunting grounds.

After being made aware of this, I adjusted my patrol areas to give him a little breathing room from the arbitrary entry point for his convoys, but not too far that I didn't have a chance to detect and attack a convoy. This was a gentleman's agreement and I am suffering from it on the India/Burma border, but the game is much more fun this way.

I am one of those players that is in it for the long haul, after all I play Federation & Empire, so I plan on getting to the end of my game with rjopel as the Japanese regardless of my condition at the time. It will be interesting to see us get there. We are just now finishing up 1942 and about to start 1943. I shudder at the coming increase of his torpedo effectiveness.



Why did you have to change your dispositions just because your opponent made an error?

Alfred

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 18
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 9:51:44 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14745
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I don't personally like the notion of repeating the Force-Z mistake and others. I do aim toward the realistic concerns that the Allies had. I still make what IRL would be 'hard' decisions about how much resources to use defending where, but I do burden myself with things. One example is that anything on the coast of US gets a bunch of forts before base facilities get expanded.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 19
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 10:04:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8538
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


However, if you give the Japanese player too much a free hand they can 'win' the game and thus there will be no Thor's hammer.


I have yet to see an auto-vic between fairly even opponents where the Allies vigorously defended themselves. If you know of one please point me to it.

That said, an Allied player who Sir Robins with no HRs and otherwise generally will n ot take risks could meet with an auto-vic.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AlaskanWarrior)
Post #: 20
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/3/2011 10:34:24 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Alfred,

Strategic options are about possibility not player strength. To every strategy there is a counter-strategy. To get caught up in the idea that someone didn't use counters in a specific game invalidates the basic concept that there are always counters is, IMO, incorrect.

Also, I would state the following to the points you made:
2. Since I held Rangoon I supplied Burma and CHina via sealift, not supply movement through the jungles. As a result I don't believe the recent changes materially effect the lessons to be learnt.
3. Manchukuo was gutted for troops.
4. Aye, certainly he bet a lot on his artillery but he also brought all the Manchukuo tanks and many of the infantry divisions with him. He didn't JUST bring artillery and then have nothing else available. He tried several attacks with regular forces.
5. True.
6. Not true. I know that was mentioned at some stage but I was also told that he would do his damnedest to beat me. I think what we have here is a bit of PR going on in case things went badly for him. After all, who can be expected to win a "test" game. He and I were very clear that this was a game being played to be won, even if one of the other goals was to test the mod in a live fire game.
7. LOL! I don't think he gave free intel. I think he tried to manage expectations by saying different things in different arenas ( something which is perfectly within his rights and acceptable IMO ). I wouldn't base an argument re: the viability of strategy on a player's PR efforts.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 21
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 12:11:02 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11117
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Interesting Discussion.

The 'find an opponent you feel comfortable with' argument holds great sway. Instead of gaminess I think the best campaigns occur when the two players feel comfortable enough to talk with each as the game develops and evolves. If that basis starts with openness, trust and communication 95% of any issues that develop will get resolved in a good, equitable manner.

This being said, I do think that some HR are occasionally needed if there is in fact an issue. Dan mentioned two earlier in this thread. I've got a pair running right now in my RA Campaign currently that have been very effective at a perceived issue within the game itself:

1. Altitude Caps: We decided to work on an incremental increase in the maximum allowed altitude for fighters during the war. In theory this reflects, newer tactics, improved technology, and better aircraft.

2. Burma/Eastern India Monsoon: Having read several of the Burma Campaign books and participated in a couple of spirited Thread discussions we decided on an extreme Monsoon Rule where NO OFFENSIVE movement, combat, and limited air sorties (due to base size) are allowed through the Monsoon months. This has truly slowed down the pace of operations in a hyperactive (my view) area of AE.

These HR are simple attempts to address perceptions within the game. Are they truly needed? It is player opinion but I thought it might be fun to contribute to the discussion with these thoughts...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 6/4/2011 12:12:32 AM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 22
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 12:35:50 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Aye, player you feel comfortable with is the key. Everyone's perception of what is reasonable is different so you just need to find someone whose perception is pretty similar to your own.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 23
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 12:36:54 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6357
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
Me and DivePac are currently playing a game with virtually no house rules. So far the game is pretty much historical. The only divergence so far is that he nabbed Port Blair four turns ago with a paradrop. But I had not reinforced it either. We are in the last few days of December and things are progressing down a pretty historical path.
But both of us are cautious players. I have not needlessly thrown away my units like a lot of Allied AAR's that I read. He is also very cautious in that he keeps his operations in line with his capabilities and every operation has ample air and sea cover.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 24
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 12:53:59 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is all well and good to advise picking a compatible opponent but some of the regulars are quite competitive. I can well envisage a player wanting very much to test their skills against a strong player even though they are not really compatible in terms of both sharing the same outlook about what is OK in the game.

Alfred



They certainly can be..., but if you chose to play against them then you should be ready to face such opposition without complaint. I was referring to someone seeking a game they would enjoy by playing in a manner they felt comfortable with. Seeking a game with an opponant who is skillfull and aggressive in applying game options "imaginatively" is something to be sought only by those desiring this type of challange in their game experiance.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 1:20:44 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Up until recently I thought two house rules were necessary in the game:  (1) no movement of units across national borders without paying PP, and (2) no strategic bombing in China until 1944.

I am now pretty sure that the first of these isn't necessary, and an argument can be made that the second isn't necessary either, though I'm not positive on that one yet.

All the other house rules can be dismissed, as there are direct counters and indirect counters that can negate the "abuse" or the abuse really isn't that big a deal.

I would certainly consider playing a no house rules game against any decent opponent, with only strat bombing in China giving me any real concern.


A point of clarification:

Would "no house rules" include the freedom for the Allied player to move all ships/planes/land units on turn 1?

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 26
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 3:00:37 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7150
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
As the Allied player I know a few things about the Japanese dispositions. I also know that I am going to get my ass handed to me at Pearl Harbor on turn one. So far, I have yet to figure out a way to game this one....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 27
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 3:35:05 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6357
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Up until recently I thought two house rules were necessary in the game:  (1) no movement of units across national borders without paying PP, and (2) no strategic bombing in China until 1944.

I am now pretty sure that the first of these isn't necessary, and an argument can be made that the second isn't necessary either, though I'm not positive on that one yet.

All the other house rules can be dismissed, as there are direct counters and indirect counters that can negate the "abuse" or the abuse really isn't that big a deal.

I would certainly consider playing a no house rules game against any decent opponent, with only strat bombing in China giving me any real concern.


A point of clarification:

Would "no house rules" include the freedom for the Allied player to move all ships/planes/land units on turn 1?



I know you were not asking me. But there are two rules that I consider to be understood enough to not even be worth mentioning as house rules. And those are 'no moving anything for the Allies on turn 1 unless it is already in a TF' i.e. it is ok to move your carriers and TF Z but it is not ok to move anything out of Manila or Pearl.
And the second rule that is to be understood is no carrier hunting on turn 1. The Japanese player can easily split up KB and cover the area SW of Pearl on turn 1 and nail both TFs even if you move your carriers. Allied TF's don't get a movement bonus so there is only a limited radius in which they can move.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 28
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 5:07:18 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

A point of clarification:

Would "no house rules" include the freedom for the Allied player to move all ships/planes/land units on turn 1?


My point of view on this is simple: If the Japanese deviate from "historical" why cant the allies? If Japan leaves the home waters with their BBs, the allies would know about it. For the most part their diplomats were looking out the window and seeing what was where in mainland Japan. If a large Japanese force was headed for say Java on turn 1, you dont think the Dutch / British / Americans would alert forces and position them to intercede? You bet they would (Watch Tora Tora Tora and see how much interest there was in 5 troop ships headed in the direction of Malaya). Signals int, civil air flights, and civilian boats would warn of a Japanese landing force headed for say Rabul. Remember that Wake, Guam and others were pit-stops for Pan Am Airlines flying regular routes through the area. Not to mention scads of "unaccounted for" military transport aircraft of all types coming and going. The Pearl Harbor striking force took the route they did to avoid these possible civilian spotters.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 29
RE: Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics - 6/4/2011 5:38:30 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1249
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)


This point isn't made often enough. So much forum bandwidth going over and over and OVER the percieved sins of 1942 on the gaminess spectrum, when so few players ever see much beyond that. A shame.

As an Allied player who has gotten to late 1944 twice, and August 1945 once, I say let the Japanese do player do ANYTHING he wants in 1942. Every decision he makes has a counter and unless there's an auto-vic nothing, absolutley nothing, the Japanese side can do in 1942 will matter by mid-1945. The Allied whiners just need to play long enough to get there and see what a Thor's Hammer they will wield.


Moose -

Well said. My pbem is a modded campaign game, with some serious changes and additions to both sides. I want the Japanese to be a very difficult and challenging opponent for as long as possible. There are no house rules, just the "rule of reason" and a Gentleman's trust and honor, between players.

Edit - I must add, after reading further into this thread (all good stuff, Gents!), that, on turn one, I will only move existing TF's. We do discuss various issues, and neither one of us hesitates to ask regarding any concerns we might have. Communication is very important.

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 6/4/2011 6:06:52 AM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics 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

0.176