Hi,
at first I am Japanese player. However now I am speaking on behalf of my PBEM partner playing the Allies.
I played for the allies two or three times in old witp and I know it is not easy to play the side that is "losing" at the moment. He threatened to seriously quit three times already - but I managed to convince him to play along.
First thing: A Japanese division and regiment kicked three australian brigades off Port Moresby in January on first deliberate attack. It was as surprising to him as to me. I supposed that I will prevail, but not on first attack with 4:3 ratio.
Second thing: We had a "small" carrier battle we reversed (to convince him to stay in the game). 84 Dauntless bombers managed to hit 3 carriers with 1 bomb each and two battleships with 6 and 5 bombs respectively. Shouldnt the carriers had priority? How could Allies with CA/CL escorts get fair CV-CV battle with Japs that have BBs in their CVTF? To get some hits on the BBs is OK, but why it was three times more than carriers?
Third thing: We reduced fighters to: sweep at best mvr altitude, CAP and escort on second best altitude. So P-40E and A6M2 Zero or Ki-43 Oscar could sweep at 15,000 and cap at 20,000. He is using squadrons that were training since the start of war or their arrival on map. It is June 1942 and he is losing almost two times the number Japanese are losing. In total he had lost 534 fighters in A2A (867 fighters total of 1430 planes total) to my 276 fighters in A2A (517 fighters total of 1440 planes total). Majority of my losses are unescorted bombers, flak and operational losses. My sweeps usually has 1:1-2 kill ratio. His sweeps got massacred in 5-10:1 kill ratio. He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements.
How are the allies supposed to win air supperiority? Are the allies supposed to EVADE Japs until second half of 1943?
Power Balance
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Power Balance
1) Your experience and leaders (and possibly prep points) is much better than Aussie units early on (in most cases). If his experience was below 50 that is likely the cause.
2) Luck. In this case, bad luck. Pure and simple.
3) Likely because of pilot fatigue. I suspect that he isnt giving his pilots a chance to rest where as you are (not to mention that the P-40E sucks - use P-39Ds instead).
2) Luck. In this case, bad luck. Pure and simple.
3) Likely because of pilot fatigue. I suspect that he isnt giving his pilots a chance to rest where as you are (not to mention that the P-40E sucks - use P-39Ds instead).
RE: Power Balance
Air superiority for the allies?? Think they cannot, not untill late in the war. if Japan concentrates his assets it should be able to smash the allies everywhere on map well untill 1943.
He'd better stay on the defensive with his fighters and train his pilots. In my Pbem i managed to get a 1-2 kill ratio in my favour during 1942 only stayin on the defensive...however i'm still losing much more planes than i can efford and my pools are constantly dry.
He has to live with it and soldier on[:'(]
He'd better stay on the defensive with his fighters and train his pilots. In my Pbem i managed to get a 1-2 kill ratio in my favour during 1942 only stayin on the defensive...however i'm still losing much more planes than i can efford and my pools are constantly dry.
He has to live with it and soldier on[:'(]
RE: Power Balance
First thing:
Well that can happen, there are also some more variables in play: leaders, supply, entrenchment, coincidenc, op mode etc.
Second thing:
Maybe the planes could not reach the carriers and/or found the BBs an easier target ?
Third thing:
P40e are lame (yes, most people said, they were better than they are made of in reality but I don´t buy this). Most allied planes are lame ducks, F4 also. P39+Hurri a bit better. P39 should be used on low altitude and vs. bombers but not against crack Zeros.
" He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements. " Guess that´s that is quite correct if the Japanese does a good job in the air. And maybe "evade" sometimes is a good idea to not lose too much pilots for the better planes arriving in 43 (P38s, Spitfire, Hellcat) Btw: I found that even the P40k is a good interim solution since it is improved vs. the e model and comes in huge numbers !
Well that can happen, there are also some more variables in play: leaders, supply, entrenchment, coincidenc, op mode etc.
Second thing:
Maybe the planes could not reach the carriers and/or found the BBs an easier target ?
Third thing:
P40e are lame (yes, most people said, they were better than they are made of in reality but I don´t buy this). Most allied planes are lame ducks, F4 also. P39+Hurri a bit better. P39 should be used on low altitude and vs. bombers but not against crack Zeros.
" He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements. " Guess that´s that is quite correct if the Japanese does a good job in the air. And maybe "evade" sometimes is a good idea to not lose too much pilots for the better planes arriving in 43 (P38s, Spitfire, Hellcat) Btw: I found that even the P40k is a good interim solution since it is improved vs. the e model and comes in huge numbers !
RE: Power Balance
ORIGINAL: Barb
Hi,
at first I am Japanese player. However now I am speaking on behalf of my PBEM partner playing the Allies.
I played for the allies two or three times in old witp and I know it is not easy to play the side that is "losing" at the moment. He threatened to seriously quit three times already - but I managed to convince him to play along.
First thing: A Japanese division and regiment kicked three australian brigades off Port Moresby in January on first deliberate attack. It was as surprising to him as to me. I supposed that I will prevail, but not on first attack with 4:3 ratio.
Thats not enough information to give a decent answer. Balance tilts quite fast under certain circumstances, more so if there is a large difference in experience, morale, fatigue, preparation, equipment or leaders.
Could be a couple of those paired with bad luck.
Second thing: We had a "small" carrier battle we reversed (to convince him to stay in the game). 84 Dauntless bombers managed to hit 3 carriers with 1 bomb each and two battleships with 6 and 5 bombs respectively. Shouldnt the carriers had priority? How could Allies with CA/CL escorts get fair CV-CV battle with Japs that have BBs in their CVTF? To get some hits on the BBs is OK, but why it was three times more than carriers?
Again sounds like bad luck to me. Also, what prevents him from using his fast BBs as carrier escorts? What date was it? How was the weather over the TF? How many Dauntless got through the CAP? 84?
BBs where primary targets in WWII.
Third thing: We reduced fighters to: sweep at best mvr altitude, CAP and escort on second best altitude. So P-40E and A6M2 Zero or Ki-43 Oscar could sweep at 15,000 and cap at 20,000. He is using squadrons that were training since the start of war or their arrival on map. However he is losing almost two times the number Japanese are losing. In total he had lost 534 fighters in A2A (867 fighters total of 1430 planes total) to my 276 fighters in A2A (517 fighters total of 1440 planes total). Majority of my losses are unescorted bombers, flak and operational losses. My sweeps usually has 1:1-2 kill ratio. His sweeps got massacred in 5-10:1 kill ratio. He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements.
How are the allies supposed to win air supperiority? Are the allies supposed to EVADE Japs until second half of 1943?
Not neccesarily. [;)]
Thats our current stats in Feb ´43, FOW offsets the true results a bit I guess.
Although I cannot comment on how the game models under the alt limits you imposed because we play without em (FWIIW I don´t think a limitation is needed), its a bad idea in general
to sweep with P40Es against IJN/IJA high performance fighters - except if you got overwhelming numbers. Thats not exactly news.
PBEM is a long time comittment. Having to convince a player 3 times alreasy and having to replay turns once, simply keep on going early war, is a bad sign.
Over all it looks loke you are the more experienced or better player. Happens. Either help your opponent to sort things out or play against somebody who matches your experience and skill.
Both can be fun, though I prefer the latter.
-
khyberbill
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:29 pm
- Location: new milford, ct
RE: Power Balance
Yes.How are the allies supposed to win air supperiority? Are the allies supposed to EVADE Japs until second half of 1943?
"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.
RE: Power Balance
My game is now in 4/43 and even good exp pilots in P39s combined with Kittyhawk IIIs can shoot down Zero escorted Bettys. The training makes a big difference and numbers (as well the Japs experience goes down cause he loses quite much over the time even if he has generally the upper hand untill 43). When those allied pilots get the better planes, I supose they can handle Oscars and Zeros easily. Tojos might be harder though.
RE: Power Balance
ORIGINAL: Barb
Hi,
at first I am Japanese player. However now I am speaking on behalf of my PBEM partner playing the Allies.
I played for the allies two or three times in old witp and I know it is not easy to play the side that is "losing" at the moment. He threatened to seriously quit three times already - but I managed to convince him to play along.
If he's threatening to quit when things don't go his way you're probably better off finding another opponent. This game has a way of rewarding those that play a better game.
I wonder what the state of his troops were , did he change out to better leaders, supply situation details such as those matter when troops are outclassed.First thing: A Japanese division and regiment kicked three australian brigades off Port Moresby in January on first deliberate attack. It was as surprising to him as to me. I supposed that I will prevail, but not on first attack with 4:3 ratio..
Second thing: We had a "small" carrier battle we reversed (to convince him to stay in the game). 84 Dauntless bombers managed to hit 3 carriers with 1 bomb each and two battleships with 6 and 5 bombs respectively. Shouldnt the carriers had priority? How could Allies with CA/CL escorts get fair CV-CV battle with Japs that have BBs in their CVTF? To get some hits on the BBs is OK, but why it was three times more than carriers?.
No attacker is a big fan of this but to me it's realism, I look at it in a sense that the attacking pilots couldn't get to the carriers so they discharged their bombs on capital ships they could get after. Besides CAP everything in a CV TF is doing what they can to protect the carriers.
Third thing: We reduced fighters to: sweep at best mvr altitude, CAP and escort on second best altitude. So P-40E and A6M2 Zero or Ki-43 Oscar could sweep at 15,000 and cap at 20,000. He is using squadrons that were training since the start of war or their arrival on map. However he is losing almost two times the number Japanese are losing. In total he had lost 534 fighters in A2A (867 fighters total of 1430 planes total) to my 276 fighters in A2A (517 fighters total of 1440 planes total). Majority of my losses are unescorted bombers, flak and operational losses. My sweeps usually has 1:1-2 kill ratio. His sweeps got massacred in 5-10:1 kill ratio. He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements.
How are the allies supposed to win air supperiority? Are the allies supposed to EVADE Japs until second half of 1943?
I guess it depends on the game but I saw directly the opposite, just because he is training since the wars start doesn't mean his training is better than the job you are doing training up pilots. If his Hurricanes are even getting knocked out of the air he may need to step his game up instead of putting blame on the engine. Just my few cents , that and a couple dollars might buy you a cup of coffee. [:)]
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
-
USS Henrico
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:05 am
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
RE: Power Balance
ORIGINAL: Barb
Third thing: We reduced fighters to: sweep at best mvr altitude, CAP and escort on second best altitude. So P-40E and A6M2 Zero or Ki-43 Oscar could sweep at 15,000 and cap at 20,000. He is using squadrons that were training since the start of war or their arrival on map. However he is losing almost two times the number Japanese are losing. In total he had lost 534 fighters in A2A (867 fighters total of 1430 planes total) to my 276 fighters in A2A (517 fighters total of 1440 planes total). Majority of my losses are unescorted bombers, flak and operational losses. My sweeps usually has 1:1-2 kill ratio. His sweeps got massacred in 5-10:1 kill ratio. He has lost more P-40Es than he has got in replacements.
How are the allies supposed to win air supperiority? Are the allies supposed to EVADE Japs until second half of 1943?
P-40Es or P-39s are not going to carry the day against Zeros, either on CAP or sweeps. P-40Ks and the limited numbers of P-38s and Corsairs the Americans get in the second half of 1942 are much more effective, assuming trained pilots, along with any Marine Wildcats that can be spared from the carriers. And the Allied player needs to be sure that his bases have working radar to assist CAP and use Air HQs to help coordinate sweeps.
But that comes in the second half of the year. In the first half of 1942, the Allied player just needs to survive. Or a bit longer if you're playing Scen 2.
April 2, 1945. The USS Henrico, supporting the invasion of Okinawa, is struck by a Francis operating as a Kamikaze, killing 51. Among the wounded was the father of this poster.
RE: Power Balance
+1ORIGINAL: SuluSea
ORIGINAL: Barb
Hi,
at first I am Japanese player. However now I am speaking on behalf of my PBEM partner playing the Allies.
I played for the allies two or three times in old witp and I know it is not easy to play the side that is "losing" at the moment. He threatened to seriously quit three times already - but I managed to convince him to play along.
If he's threatening to quit when things don't go his way you're probably better off finding another opponent. This game has a way of rewarding those that play a better game.
That's way too many threats to quit ... I agree. Looks like you haven't found the right opponent.
All 3 of the events could happen easily, nothing special at all about them.
Pax
RE: Power Balance
Hi, thanks for your answers.
I forgot to say its June 1942.
In the first case: My 4th Division prepared for PM since day 1. 144th Regiment came from Rabaul.
In the second case: We run the turn two times (the second as testing). In the second case his 84 Dauntless got 1 hit on carriers and 9 hits on battleships. I would say Carrier is target priority number one in any case. Allies do not have any fast battleships yet.
About my PBEM game opponent: I played it three times (each time as allies) and all my partners quit without word (and i didnt use any tricks). This opponent is a long time friend of mine, and we talk much on skype discussing and sometimes even disclosing things to each other. I am also restrictricting myself in some situations. This is the reason I started playing japs for the first time.
I forgot to say its June 1942.
In the first case: My 4th Division prepared for PM since day 1. 144th Regiment came from Rabaul.
In the second case: We run the turn two times (the second as testing). In the second case his 84 Dauntless got 1 hit on carriers and 9 hits on battleships. I would say Carrier is target priority number one in any case. Allies do not have any fast battleships yet.
About my PBEM game opponent: I played it three times (each time as allies) and all my partners quit without word (and i didnt use any tricks). This opponent is a long time friend of mine, and we talk much on skype discussing and sometimes even disclosing things to each other. I am also restrictricting myself in some situations. This is the reason I started playing japs for the first time.
RE: Power Balance
Personally if they've spat the chewied already- I'd be finding another opponent. Not accepting the results of battles (E.g. carrier engagement) encourages risky strategies that your opponent will accept the outcome of if they come off the way he wants and complain about if they don't.
RE: Power Balance
I am a newbie to this game. I have played wargames off and on since 1970 .. The Battle of the Bulge .. Jutland .. PanzerBlitz, and yes Complex board games like "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich". Right up to SSI's War in the Pacific. You would think that a Computer would make a "War in the Pacific" like game easier. It does not. In my 40 plus years of wargaming this is by far the most complex game in terms of nuances and details. It is full of "Adventure Quest" kinds of things where even an experinced wargamer with a good strategy can suffer consequinces if the the right clicks at the right time are not made. Like "Home Port" is not intuitive, and supply convoys that require Strategic thinking 3 - 6 months in advance of where the offense will take place,. At a operational level -- aircraft are set default at maximum range where damage and fatigue is also the default ever aircraft unit has to be checked... let alone the operational complexity of weather etc on missions .. then there is the tatical coordination of aircraft .... It can be simply overwhelming. Unlike Rise and Decline of the Third Reich where rules were covered but in contradictory prose ... WitP AE documentation simply does not give the newbie the background to understand the game. What is the importance of a AS besides suporting subs do they work like an AO (Yes I know how they work now but try and see the context? Well the experienced members of this group will all bask in the glow of my ignorance.[&o]
Although the intial learning experince can be frustrating, As the Allies I have looked at the situation and feel pretty confident that like WWII I can learn as I go and prepare for a really fun time late 1943 thorugh 1944. Having played "Drang Nach Osten" as the Russians ... well its the same thing
But, having lived through trends .. wargaming requires a growing community, and if we do not cultivate that community it will be left to a few fanatics. That is not enough .. especially in a software driven market to support "You know what a cool feature would be ..." and the game no longer grows ...
For those that believe you have the secret formula that one should learn only by experience ... The Poker community hosts a convention every year in Las Vegas called "BARGE" where many established experts share their experince. This is not just a game for establishment of a competitive hierarchy but real money at stake. If that community can see the light.... maybe the solution might be to play a couple of short scenrarios where the experinced player walks through some of the more confusing non-intutive parts of the game and then build into a full game campaign ...
Just my thoughts as a newbie ..
Although the intial learning experince can be frustrating, As the Allies I have looked at the situation and feel pretty confident that like WWII I can learn as I go and prepare for a really fun time late 1943 thorugh 1944. Having played "Drang Nach Osten" as the Russians ... well its the same thing
But, having lived through trends .. wargaming requires a growing community, and if we do not cultivate that community it will be left to a few fanatics. That is not enough .. especially in a software driven market to support "You know what a cool feature would be ..." and the game no longer grows ...
For those that believe you have the secret formula that one should learn only by experience ... The Poker community hosts a convention every year in Las Vegas called "BARGE" where many established experts share their experince. This is not just a game for establishment of a competitive hierarchy but real money at stake. If that community can see the light.... maybe the solution might be to play a couple of short scenrarios where the experinced player walks through some of the more confusing non-intutive parts of the game and then build into a full game campaign ...
Just my thoughts as a newbie ..
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
RE: Power Balance
ORIGINAL: Crackaces
I am a newbie to this game. I have played wargames off and on since 1970 .. The Battle of the Bulge .. Jutland .. PanzerBlitz, and yes Complex board games like "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich". Right up to SSI's War in the Pacific. You would think that a Computer would make a "War in the Pacific" like game easier. It does not. In my 40 plus years of wargaming this is by far the most complex game in terms of nuances and details. It is full of "Adventure Quest" kinds of things where even an experinced wargamer with a good strategy can suffer consequinces if the the right clicks at the right time are not made. Like "Home Port" is not intuitive, and supply convoys that require Strategic thinking 3 - 6 months in advance of where the offense will take place,. At a operational level -- aircraft are set default at maximum range where damage and fatigue is also the default ever aircraft unit has to be checked... let alone the operational complexity of weather etc on missions .. then there is the tatical coordination of aircraft .... It can be simply overwhelming. Unlike Rise and Decline of the Third Reich where rules were covered but in contradictory prose ... WitP AE documentation simply does not give the newbie the background to understand the game. What is the importance of a AS besides suporting subs do they work like an AO (Yes I know how they work now but try and see the context? Well the experienced members of this group will all bask in the glow of my ignorance.[&o]
Although the intial learning experince can be frustrating, As the Allies I have looked at the situation and feel pretty confident that like WWII I can learn as I go and prepare for a really fun time late 1943 thorugh 1944. Having played "Drang Nach Osten" as the Russians ... well its the same thing
But, having lived through trends .. wargaming requires a growing community, and if we do not cultivate that community it will be left to a few fanatics. That is not enough .. especially in a software driven market to support "You know what a cool feature would be ..." and the game no longer grows ...
For those that believe you have the secret formula that one should learn only by experience ... The Poker community hosts a convention every year in Las Vegas called "BARGE" where many established experts share their experince. This is not just a game for establishment of a competitive hierarchy but real money at stake. If that community can see the light.... maybe the solution might be to play a couple of short scenrarios where the experinced player walks through some of the more confusing non-intutive parts of the game and then build into a full game campaign ...
Just my thoughts as a newbie ..
Nice words mate. But i do think this community is really open to newbies. I just started few months ago and i got a support that one could only dream in other game community. Every player in this forum shares his secrets, his experiences and help you out in any aspect of the game...
-
vonTirpitz
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:30 pm
- Location: Wilmington, NC
- Contact:
RE: Power Balance
Like many others whom have posted already it sounds like this is more of a case of "Player Balance" and not about Power. In addition to the many nuances of the game, player experience with the mechanics, as well as historical knowledge and strategy PBEM games are mostly a matter of personalities.
IMHO June 1942 way too early in a campaign game for the allies to think that they have "lost" the war. The Japs have 1 or 2 years at most before the Allied player can easily take the initiative in almost any situation. It is a game of attrition on Japan but that doesn't mean that the allies need to sit back and hide. They will recoup their losses and inflict many times as much on Japan before it is said and done.
Short of making boneheaded mistakes (which even the most experienced players sometimes do) by losing carriers because all of the flights were set on 100% training or not setting preparation for a target, the Allies can always find a soft spot in the Japanese perimeter and make a general nuisance of themselves in the early years. Patience and thoughtfulness are the keys here.
In your case I would continue to be considerate and encouraging of your opponent but I wouldn't "throw" a battle just to make them feel better about playing. If they really are interesting in seeing a game through to the end then I wouldn't expect them to ever "threaten" to quit.
Good luck and hope it all works out for both of you.
PS. If a campaign does end prematurely then simply consider that you broke the will of the enemy and chalk up a victory for yourself. Move on and play another scenario or side.
+1
IMHO June 1942 way too early in a campaign game for the allies to think that they have "lost" the war. The Japs have 1 or 2 years at most before the Allied player can easily take the initiative in almost any situation. It is a game of attrition on Japan but that doesn't mean that the allies need to sit back and hide. They will recoup their losses and inflict many times as much on Japan before it is said and done.
Short of making boneheaded mistakes (which even the most experienced players sometimes do) by losing carriers because all of the flights were set on 100% training or not setting preparation for a target, the Allies can always find a soft spot in the Japanese perimeter and make a general nuisance of themselves in the early years. Patience and thoughtfulness are the keys here.
In your case I would continue to be considerate and encouraging of your opponent but I wouldn't "throw" a battle just to make them feel better about playing. If they really are interesting in seeing a game through to the end then I wouldn't expect them to ever "threaten" to quit.
Good luck and hope it all works out for both of you.
PS. If a campaign does end prematurely then simply consider that you broke the will of the enemy and chalk up a victory for yourself. Move on and play another scenario or side.
ORIGINAL: SuluSea
This game has a way of rewarding those that play a better game.
+1
RE: Power Balance
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: Crackaces
I am a newbie to this game. I have played wargames off and on since 1970 .. The Battle of the Bulge .. Jutland .. PanzerBlitz, and yes Complex board games like "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich". Right up to SSI's War in the Pacific. You would think that a Computer would make a "War in the Pacific" like game easier. It does not. In my 40 plus years of wargaming this is by far the most complex game in terms of nuances and details. It is full of "Adventure Quest" kinds of things where even an experinced wargamer with a good strategy can suffer consequinces if the the right clicks at the right time are not made. Like "Home Port" is not intuitive, and supply convoys that require Strategic thinking 3 - 6 months in advance of where the offense will take place,. At a operational level -- aircraft are set default at maximum range where damage and fatigue is also the default ever aircraft unit has to be checked... let alone the operational complexity of weather etc on missions .. then there is the tatical coordination of aircraft .... It can be simply overwhelming. Unlike Rise and Decline of the Third Reich where rules were covered but in contradictory prose ... WitP AE documentation simply does not give the newbie the background to understand the game. What is the importance of a AS besides suporting subs do they work like an AO (Yes I know how they work now but try and see the context? Well the experienced members of this group will all bask in the glow of my ignorance.[&o]
Although the intial learning experince can be frustrating, As the Allies I have looked at the situation and feel pretty confident that like WWII I can learn as I go and prepare for a really fun time late 1943 thorugh 1944. Having played "Drang Nach Osten" as the Russians ... well its the same thing
But, having lived through trends .. wargaming requires a growing community, and if we do not cultivate that community it will be left to a few fanatics. That is not enough .. especially in a software driven market to support "You know what a cool feature would be ..." and the game no longer grows ...
For those that believe you have the secret formula that one should learn only by experience ... The Poker community hosts a convention every year in Las Vegas called "BARGE" where many established experts share their experince. This is not just a game for establishment of a competitive hierarchy but real money at stake. If that community can see the light.... maybe the solution might be to play a couple of short scenrarios where the experinced player walks through some of the more confusing non-intutive parts of the game and then build into a full game campaign ...
Just my thoughts as a newbie ..
Nice words mate. But i do think this community is really open to newbies. I just started few months ago and i got a support that one could only dream in other game community. Every player in this forum shares his secrets, his experiences and help you out in any aspect of the game...
Your right GreyJoy... I painted too broad of a stroke with my comments. Actually vonTirpitz eloquently stated the problem. Which I agree, and that is the game does not have a power balance problem, but any imbalances in player WitP experience, Wargaming experience, history etc. along with attention to details and the ability to think at all three levels Tatically, Operationally, and Strategically -- can result in frustration for the weaker player. The wider the spectrum of this experience and the greater the frustration. Now thie subject of the original post might jsut be a cry baby .. that is a possibility too .. but I will surmise the better ... I do know for me I have mentioned my experience with complex board game systems like "War in the Pacific" and "Drang Nach Osten," and these games do not come even close to the complexity of WitP. I am 2 weeks into a PBEM full capaign with no experience in this game, and the learning curve has been overwhelming at times.
So then .... given a lack of PBEM players, at least in the case of a lack of PBEM players, I propose the solution of bringing that player along and explain the nuances as the game progresses. If competive victory is important -- than play a short scenraro might be in order and then the full campaign. I think this is especially relavant because of the turn increments of one day at a time ...One week of showing a player the game mechanics does not mean you can not enjoy the next year .
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
RE: Power Balance
Get your mate to read Canoe's AAR (And a few others)to see what an Allied player can get up to in 1942!!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: Power Balance
The issue is not the game. The Allies will take a beating in 42 and need to be cautious. But the Allies can absorb a lot of beatings and easily come back to dominate the game.
The issues is whether or not you want to keep playing a game with somebody who keeps threatening to resign after a few relatively minor setbacks. Personally, I would not waste my time.
The issues is whether or not you want to keep playing a game with somebody who keeps threatening to resign after a few relatively minor setbacks. Personally, I would not waste my time.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
-
Chickenboy
- Posts: 24520
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
RE: Power Balance
This is the way I look at it too. My very first Allied PBEM partner disappeared after a major naval battle went horribly awry for him. I chalked it up as a victory. Allies had their will broken, I win. One CG victory por moi. Then I moved on.ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz
PS. If a campaign does end prematurely then simply consider that you broke the will of the enemy and chalk up a victory for yourself. Move on and play another scenario or side.
You won't miss it as badly after a few months in another game, trust me. It sucks to get dumped, you just have to package it in the right way for yourself.
RE: Power Balance
I think Crackaces is right. If you have had bad experiences with opponents disappearing and found a friend who is willing to play, you are going to want to cultivate that. Try a shorter scenario and make it more of a learning experience than a competition.
Were he not someone you knew I'd agree with the others who say you may want to move on. Certainly you don't want to play a game where you worry about making a good move that causes your opponent to quit.