Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Question about house rule

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Question about house rule Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 12:31:52 AM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 773
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ALF1

Hello,

Becouse we are speaking about me, the mythic opponent I would like to clarify. I do not want offend my opponent only ask for your oppinion becouse he accuse me be gamey. First what I would like to say I do not see anything gamey in my game but there could be different point of view which I would like to know. I will try to by specific to comments of my opponent.


1.Rangoon defence by hundert of plaine:
I pay PP to release AVG squadrons - I move them from CAF HQ(R) to the "China AIR taskForce" see picture - I do not thing is gamey They start in Burma and I keep them in Burma.

2."i wiped out 1/3 or 2/3 of his airforce since all those pilots are supposed to be in training units":
This is completlly out of reality. Picture I post is after this "wipedig out" you see 7:2 AIR kills and no killed pilot , same simmilar for other 2 AVG squadron.

See this air battle from combat report:

Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 21
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 30
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 12
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12



Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 59
Buffalo I x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 7 destroyed, 5 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK Jaladuta, Bomb hits 1
xAKL Kwai Sang, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rohna, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAP Tilawa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Rajula, Bomb hits 1
xAP Santhia, Bomb hits 1


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Port hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
17 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
AVG/1st Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 11 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
AVG/2nd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with H81-A3 (5 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
No.67 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (3 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers

Is there something to complain ? I put this quit big CAP becouse just arrived one division in Rangoon( initially planed for Singapore - now I do not remember its name)







If you were going to keep the AVG in Burma, why spend PPs to change from CAF(HQ) to China Air Task Force?

(in reply to ALF1)
Post #: 31
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 1:32:32 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 32
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 2:49:16 AM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 773
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.



He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 33
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 11:27:48 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3558
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.



He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.


No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 34
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 2:12:45 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 773
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.



He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.


No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?




Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 35
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 4:02:01 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4852
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online
ALF1,

Well done!

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 36
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 4:14:08 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

If you were going to keep the AVG in Burma, why spend PPs to change from CAF(HQ) to China Air Task Force?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.



He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.


You need to completely form your question then. I thought you were asking why he changed the HQ at all, not to which one.

< Message edited by Dan Nichols -- 5/10/2012 4:15:06 PM >

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 37
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 5:29:02 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3558
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.



He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.


No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?




Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.



Grow up you childish POS. I merely defended the gameplay of some one else. For you to make assumptions regarding my game play based on that is about as childish as it gets. I've been wargaming for longer than you have probably been alive and certainly don't have any need whatsoever to prove myself to the likes of you. If you had a bit more longevity on this forum you might have had the oppurtunity to witness the MANY games where China is conquered and the MANY games where India is conquered. Try defending your attacks on the gameplay of others with something more credible than mudslinging.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 38
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 5:43:04 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1442
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Grow up you childish POS.


I think there are some even AAR'd Scen 1 or DBB games where Japan has or is about to conquer all of China, or some other "extra" in addition to the historical perimeter.However, I'd say just as many are those(often short) games where Japan fails to secure even the historical perimeter.

I dont know of a single AAR'd Scen 1 or comparable scenario game where Japan has survived to the historical surrender date, or where it looks like it is going to. All the AAR'd games where Japan has done well have been Scen 2, AFAIK.

EDIT: just to make my opinion more clear, I am not saying the Allied are OP in WitP:AE, compared to the Japanese. But there is clearly something in the game mechanics and/or player psychology that favors the Allies that much. One part of it could be the higher than historical operational tempo allowed by the simplified logistics, only one player per side with less than historical responsibilities leading to more risk taking, or many reasons like that together.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 5/10/2012 5:53:15 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 39
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 6:59:48 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2615
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Erkki .. I would be a newbie to this game only having 400 or so turns under my belt as an AFB .. but I would contend that the IJ fall into the trap of not transitioning into defensive mode until a disaster. Then the operations tempo accellerates for the Allies ..

BUT .. the victory conditions of the game might have something to do with things .. the airbase * port * multiplier means that simply building key bases up whether the base really affects the contest or not greatly affects victory points. I am unintentionally gaining all kinds of VP's this way ...

That said ..I would contend as the Allied commander in my game that it will last until 46 .. a real close call .. we shall see ...

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 40
RE: Question about house rule - 5/10/2012 11:58:54 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 773
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Because you can not move them to a non Chinese base? To use them in Burma you have to change the HQ.



He used a discounted PP cost to unrestrict the AVG, assigning the unit to a HQ that shows up 3 days before the unit withdraws:

China Air Task Force HQ arrival date - 1 July 42
AVG withdraw date - 4 July 42.

These are the kind of gamey abuses that ruin AE.


No, these are the kinds of standard game allowable tactics that make it possible for the Allies to stand up to the heavily overpowered Japanese side that is ahistorically capable of conquering ALL of China, or ALL of India or MOST of Australia.

Try learning a bit more about the game before you start accusing others of unrealistic game tactics. No side abounds with more ahistorially allowable game tactics than the Japanese side.....can anyone say "invasion bonus"?




Please show an example of a Scenario 01 game in which Japan has conquered all of China, India, and most of Australia. For that matter, show an example of a Scenario 02 game in which Japan has done that.

Excusing a player's gamey tactics merely to defend your own use of gamey tactics speaks volumes about your character, and about your abilities as a player.

Try learning a bit about tactics and strategy, and how to properly employ them in the game, before blaming the game for your poor play.



Grow up you childish POS. I merely defended the gameplay of some one else. For you to make assumptions regarding my game play based on that is about as childish as it gets. I've been wargaming for longer than you have probably been alive and certainly don't have any need whatsoever to prove myself to the likes of you. If you had a bit more longevity on this forum you might have had the oppurtunity to witness the MANY games where China is conquered and the MANY games where India is conquered. Try defending your attacks on the gameplay of others with something more credible than mudslinging.



Name-calling? Yeah, that's so adult.

You did not merely "defend" another player's choice to use gamey tactics, you acknowledged you do the same. At the same time, you displayed your obvious lack of strategic wargaming ability by decring AE as a game having an impossible-to-defeat-without-cheating Japan. Again, try using actual sound strategies and tactics without cheating; you will be surprised at just how easy it is for the Allies to defeat the "heavily overpowered japanese side".

About my age, you have absolutely no idea how old I am, nor how long I have been playing wargames. Frankly, I don't see what difference it makes, but I will say you have already proven much about your character and wargaming abilities to me. And I am not impressed.

As to how long I have been a member of Matrix Games forums, I don't believe that I am the only member to have read these forums for a long time, even years, before becoming an active member. I realize that concept might be beyond your comprehension level, so I will try to make my next point as simple as possible:

My "official" join date - 30 May 2009
WitP AE release date - 27 July 2009

Note that I was "officially" here before AE was released; thus I have, in fact, "had the oppurtunity to witness" EVERY AAR ever written in the AE forums. And while there are some that do feature Japanese coquests of China, or India, or Australia, they are, IMO, usually due to grossly mis-matched opponents or to flagrant use of gamey tactics, not because Japan is ahistorically overpowered. At any rate, they are hardly the norm.

Finally, if you had bothered to actually read the whole thread, you would have seen that the person to whom I was referring had asked whether or not the changing of the AVG's HQ was gamey. Several other posters said no, I said yes. That was not an attack on his gameplay, simply an expressed opinion on his gameplay. You took it upon yourself to start the mudslinging and name-calling.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 41
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 12:17:15 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1899
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: online
Get a room you two....

Now as for the original subject.. He used a game mechanic that is available. If you did not agree on a houserule on it he is not cheating IMO. He actually made a very reasonable decision in setting a huge CAP while unloading 18th brit. division. If you do not have the assets in place to stop him from doing that you should simply think about other ways of getting to those troops..

Lock down Rangoon? Use sweeps to destroy AVG? He has only limited replacement aircraft. So you lose 30 or even 40 oscars.. So what? You knock out those fighters and gain AS in Burma...

Play the game, if you aren't winning think of something else..

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 42
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 12:20:11 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1899
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

With one of my opponenets we have rule to pay pp for transfering units across borders.


He did not cross a national border. He simply unrestricted the AVG. If you do not want him to do that, agree on a new houserule..

_____________________________


"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor


(in reply to armin)
Post #: 43
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 1:51:32 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5698
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

With one of my opponenets we have rule to pay pp for transfering units across borders.


He did not cross a national border. He simply unrestricted the AVG. If you do not want him to do that, agree on a new houserule..

+1

As a couple of us have already said, you may not have a suitable opponent for you. You seem to be taking offense to some of his moves.

Having said that, I would play your opponent. So far he hasn't done anything I would find gamey at all. In fact, he's done a couple of standard moves (re-assign AVG) and at least one novel move (attack Truk). Good Job ALF1.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 44
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 2:03:42 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4852
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online
quote:

PaxMondo

Having said that, I would play your opponent. So far he hasn't done anything I would find gamey at all. In fact, he's done a couple of standard moves (re-assign AVG) and at least one novel move (attack Truk). Good Job ALF1.


Agreed!

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 45
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 3:57:45 PM   
armin


Posts: 57
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

With one of my opponenets we have rule to pay pp for transfering units across borders.


He did not cross a national border. He simply unrestricted the AVG. If you do not want him to do that, agree on a new houserule..

+1

As a couple of us have already said, you may not have a suitable opponent for you. You seem to be taking offense to some of his moves.

Having said that, I would play your opponent. So far he hasn't done anything I would find gamey at all. In fact, he's done a couple of standard moves (re-assign AVG) and at least one novel move (attack Truk). Good Job ALF1.


Well Alf1 is currently looking for opponent so you may start game with him and write AAR. Im quite sure it will be very interesting one to read.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 46
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 4:25:56 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Nothing gamey at all about ALF1's moves. Just smart play.

There are effective counters available to the Japanese for all of these moves:

AVG: Sweep them with Zeros, and bomb the airbase at Rangoon (instead of the crap AKs in the port). The AVG P-40s, whatever their designation, has no replacements, so losses are permanent. Atrrite them, and they will go away.

B-17s: 1. Take Rabaul. 2. Don't park valuable ships within B-17 range of any Size-2 or greater Allied base; that's about 20 hexes. 3. In the DEI, LRCAP your troops he is bombing. B-17s are very tough to shoot down, but the achilles heel for those is that a) They are difficult to repair, and most Allied bases in early 42 lack adequate facilities to do so, and b) there are few replacements. Soerbaya has enough air support, but the Allies do not have any way to prevent you from bombing Soerbaya. If you damage the airstrip, B-17s will start to take alot of OPS damage, and struggle to repair it.

HQs: I don't see the problem here; the only gamey issue around HQs is spending discounted PPs to change to an HQ within the same Restricted HQ, then buying the HQ; this reduces the PP spend quite a bit, but is generally considered gamey. It's actually less gamey to buy a unit to an HQ that is not on the map, because it prevents this workaround.

(in reply to Atilla60)
Post #: 47
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 5:17:44 PM   
armin


Posts: 57
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nothing gamey at all about ALF1's moves. Just smart play.

There are effective counters available to the Japanese for all of these moves:

AVG: Sweep them with Zeros, and bomb the airbase at Rangoon (instead of the crap AKs in the port). The AVG P-40s, whatever their designation, has no replacements, so losses are permanent. Atrrite them, and they will go away.

B-17s: 1. Take Rabaul. 2. Don't park valuable ships within B-17 range of any Size-2 or greater Allied base; that's about 20 hexes. 3. In the DEI, LRCAP your troops he is bombing. B-17s are very tough to shoot down, but the achilles heel for those is that a) They are difficult to repair, and most Allied bases in early 42 lack adequate facilities to do so, and b) there are few replacements. Soerbaya has enough air support, but the Allies do not have any way to prevent you from bombing Soerbaya. If you damage the airstrip, B-17s will start to take alot of OPS damage, and struggle to repair it.

HQs: I don't see the problem here; the only gamey issue around HQs is spending discounted PPs to change to an HQ within the same Restricted HQ, then buying the HQ; this reduces the PP spend quite a bit, but is generally considered gamey. It's actually less gamey to buy a unit to an HQ that is not on the map, because it prevents this workaround.


However i canceled the game there is no point to talk about it anymore.

The AVG group was realy no problem (but i do not agree with the hq stuff) he conviniently just posted first battle report. The planes he used had service rating 3 and after 3rd raid my bombing group was not engaged by single aircraft.

For Rabaul and MO i need KB, It was busy near borneo where he was mnoving with B around from base to base and bombing landing forces. The cap from mainland cant reach to borneo and the invasion force needs to have more engineers with av to operate squadrons from local fields efficiently. He was moving bombers around in december 41. Thats why i say avoiding the realistical hq approach sucks. Becouse normaly he would need to pay pp each time he would move them. If you just assign units to some future hq you can move now unrestricted group anywhere each second day completly disregarding any reality and you pay for it only once. For example bombers with 20-22 range can switch bases each second day and good luck getting there with TF that has range 8 per day. Imagine having 3 airfields in triangle each around 20-40 hexes in distance Yo would need 2 bs heavy fleets and one kb or split kb to 3 small parts to instantly lock down all airfields and still the unrestricted bombers could make it out before the fleets would arrive. Future HQ are just way how to exploit the pp system.

The truk bombardment i agree with you fully i should move ships deeper to my space.

Everyone completly misses the point about the game time period. This was not done in some advanced time but all in december 41. Thats why i canceled the game at the start and asked for advice if i should continue at first place.






< Message edited by armin -- 5/11/2012 5:30:31 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 48
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 5:44:05 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
Why do you think he would or should pay PPs every time he moves an air group? He can just assign them to an unrestricted HQ that is present and move them where ever he wants.

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 49
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 6:41:27 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 812
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
Well don't cha know, gameyness is defined by the IJ losing a CV in port to a port attack in Jan 42

:D

(in reply to Atilla60)
Post #: 50
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 6:52:28 PM   
ALF1


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2011
From: Czech republic
Status: offline
[/quote]

However i canceled the game there is no point to talk about it anymore.

The AVG group was realy no problem (but i do not agree with the hq stuff) he conviniently just posted first battle report. The planes he used had service rating 3 and after 3rd raid my bombing group was not engaged by single aircraft.
Sorry armin you are doing again assumption without reality really behind , I will post picture of all 4 sqadron involved over Rangoon. Your planes were not engaged after by single aircraft is becouse that there was not any reason to loose my aircaft to your sweeps and raids - I mean division was already unloaded and all ships were on way back. For your info , your first raid come when division was 90% unloaded-too late. I play long enough to now that I should save my plane only for reason I will need them. So they were back deep and in training process again

For Rabaul and MO i need KB, It was busy near borneo where he was mnoving with B around from base to base and bombing landing forces. The cap from mainland cant reach to borneo and the invasion force needs to have more engineers with av to operate squadrons from local fields efficiently. He was moving bombers around in december 41. Thats why i say avoiding the realistical hq approach sucks. Becouse normaly he would need to pay pp each time he would move them. If you just assign units to some future hq you can move now unrestricted group anywhere each second day completly disregarding any reality and you pay for it only once. For example bombers with 20-22 range can switch bases each second day and good luck getting there with TF that has range 8 per day. Imagine having 3 airfields in triangle each around 20-40 hexes in distance Yo would need 2 bs heavy fleets and one kb or split kb to 3 small parts to instantly lock down all airfields and still the unrestricted bombers could make it out before the fleets would arrive. Future HQ are just way how to exploit the pp system.

The truk bombardment i agree with you fully i should move ships deeper to my space.

Everyone completly misses the point about the game time period. This was not done in some advanced time but all in december 41. Thats why i canceled the game at the start and asked for advice if i should continue at first place.





[/quote]

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 51
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 7:03:21 PM   
ALF1


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2011
From: Czech republic
Status: offline
AVG1




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ALF1)
Post #: 52
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 7:03:59 PM   
ALF1


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2011
From: Czech republic
Status: offline
AVG 2




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ALF1)
Post #: 53
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 7:05:18 PM   
ALF1


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2011
From: Czech republic
Status: offline
AVG 3




Attachment (1)

(in reply to ALF1)
Post #: 54
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 7:07:08 PM   
ALF1


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2011
From: Czech republic
Status: offline
buffalo




So in total over Rangoon 27 japs killed: 15 allied aircraft destroyed (any pilot killed/4 wounded)

in this time (december 41) not so bad for UK. And again this "battle over Rangoon" was only becouse the transport of UK division to Rangoon.

Biggest looses were when I already LRCAPed transport ships heading from Rangoon ( 2 hexes away) and they were recalled back over Rangoon - and this "recalling" is not possible to control in game ( at least based on my knowledge-if you know please let me know, at least I will learn something from this discussion)

Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53
Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 29,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 22
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 38
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 12

Allied aircraft
H81-A3 x 62
Buffalo I x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
H81-A3: 4 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x Ki-43-Ia Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
6 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
2 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet
10 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar sweeping at 25000 feet

CAP engaged:
AVG/1st Sqn with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 3 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 33000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
AVG/2nd Sqn with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 6 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
AVG/3rd Sqn with H81-A3 (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
No.67 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters between 29000 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes


But anyway in my point of view this story over Rangoon was absolutely not important in our game. There were other action important but I do not want blame Armin in front of other people - I wish him good opponent matching to him.

His reason for closing the game is for me strange - he wants in fact not to allowe change the airfield with unrestricted squadron because on second ( or third airfield) this squadron will operate under different HQ ( you can not same HQ in two airfield in same time:-). I newer saw this request by other people - but again I did not play with too many people during my 3 year daily playing becouse I newer close the game for any reason and I prefer to continue the game if possible - becouse I am spending extreme long time with each turn - and I regret this time to close the game. ( For my former opponent Dali ther is different story - I should excuse him I use jap R&D in that time to the limit - which is not really fair ).

This is last post to this topic - thx a lot for everybody point of view and time. I made for me conclusion ,from all posts, that I made nothing unfair in this game.

Bye ALF

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ALF1 -- 5/11/2012 7:40:58 PM >

(in reply to ALF1)
Post #: 55
RE: Question about house rule - 5/11/2012 9:05:27 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1576
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
I don't see anything gamey about either the Rangoon CAP or the B-17s striking Truk.

Unconventional - yes

Risky - yes

Ahistorical - yes

Impossible/unrealistic/gamey - no

However, I do have a problem with the issue that hasn't been discussed much - sending single ships (presumably xAKLs or xAKs) out in front of higher-value TFs to absorb enemy air sorties or SCTF ammo. I refuse to use this technique to draw away enemy air attacks or to suck up SCTF ammo as it takes advantage of a couple of shortcomings of the game engine - it can't properly prioritize air attacks and it unloads too much high-priority ammo (torpedoes and BB/CA main battery) on meaningless ships. Now, sending a substantial diversionary TF out in front of a main body to draw the enemy out - like the Shoho at Coral Sea -that's okay.

I only play against the AI (not enough time to commit to a PBEM yet) and even against the AI, I don't stoop to this tactic. And, if I were to play a PBEM and my opponent tried this tactic, it would be the end of the game. I'd refuse to continue. (On the other hand, it probably would never be an issue, because I would be clear about establishing a HR against it and would be certain my opponent realized how strongly I felt about it.)

(in reply to Atilla60)
Post #: 56
RE: Question about house rule - 5/12/2012 1:09:48 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2615
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

However, I do have a problem with the issue that hasn't been discussed much - sending single ships (presumably xAKLs or xAKs) out in front of higher-value TFs to absorb enemy air sorties or SCTF ammo


Its worse than this in my limited experince .. single ship TF's really can bork the engine causing BB SAF TF's to spend ops and run away rather than even engage ... Just add an additional ship seems to change the behavior ...

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 57
RE: Question about house rule - 5/20/2012 7:32:32 PM   
scout1


Posts: 1748
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
I've exclusively played the Japanese side ......

Relative to your moves/approach ..... my compliments ..... Nothing gamey there

(in reply to ALF1)
Post #: 58
RE: Question about house rule - 5/20/2012 9:35:13 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hmmm I sense SCL syndrome. Well played and in my book not gamey at all.

_____________________________



(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 59
RE: Question about house rule - 5/20/2012 11:16:35 PM   
Icedawg


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

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Hmmm I sense SCL syndrome. Well played and in my book not gamey at all.


SCL? What's that?

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Question about house rule Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.115