Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 5:50:34 AM   
Barb


Posts: 1596
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Sudden Carrier Loss Syndrome i think :)

_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 61
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 10:55:40 AM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Sudden Carrier Loss Syndrome i think :)



_____________________________



(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 62
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 11:34:13 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3471
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
To those taking the unreasonable position that transferring units to HQs that have not entered the game yet is somehow "gamey", how do you reconcile your position with the simple fact that not only do units enter as reinforcements attached to those very same HQs that have not yet entered the game, but units actully START THE GAME ON THE MAP attached to those very same HQs that have not yet entered the game? Are you accusing the scenario designers of being "gamey"?

Just because an HQ hasn't yet entered the game to be deployed on the map doesn't mean it isn't in existence off map somewhere. The simple reality is that most Allied HQs don't start the game on map. The Allies are in the unenviable position of starting the war unprepared and have to "gear up" and deploy to get things going. They are already more than hampered enough in the early months. What the proponents of the "no transfers to off map HQs" seem to be looking for is an opponent with both hands tied behind his back instead of one, completely unable to react in any way to the IJ steamroller. They want a patsy not an opponent and the claims that transfers to off map HQs is somehow gamey stinks of something rotten in Denmark.

As for the claim that air units should have to be forced to change HQs every time they transfer to another base. it couldn't be more absurd. There simply aren't enough air HQs on either side to accomodate such a wish. How would the Japanese player like it if he had to spend precious PPs every time he staged his land based air forward as his perimeter expands? Again, this smacks of a sad grasp at a straw to preclude the kind of audacious result suffered by an attack on Truk when it was unexpected. The unexpected happens and accusing some one of gamey play and calling for a house rule just because one suffered a bad result from the unexpected is just plain sad!

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 63
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 1:09:09 PM   
armin


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

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

To those taking the unreasonable position that transferring units to HQs that have not entered the game yet is somehow "gamey", how do you reconcile your position with the simple fact that not only do units enter as reinforcements attached to those very same HQs that have not yet entered the game, but units actully START THE GAME ON THE MAP attached to those very same HQs that have not yet entered the game? Are you accusing the scenario designers of being "gamey"?

Just because an HQ hasn't yet entered the game to be deployed on the map doesn't mean it isn't in existence off map somewhere. The simple reality is that most Allied HQs don't start the game on map. The Allies are in the unenviable position of starting the war unprepared and have to "gear up" and deploy to get things going. They are already more than hampered enough in the early months. What the proponents of the "no transfers to off map HQs" seem to be looking for is an opponent with both hands tied behind his back instead of one, completely unable to react in any way to the IJ steamroller. They want a patsy not an opponent and the claims that transfers to off map HQs is somehow gamey stinks of something rotten in Denmark.

As for the claim that air units should have to be forced to change HQs every time they transfer to another base. it couldn't be more absurd. There simply aren't enough air HQs on either side to accomodate such a wish. How would the Japanese player like it if he had to spend precious PPs every time he staged his land based air forward as his perimeter expands? Again, this smacks of a sad grasp at a straw to preclude the kind of audacious result suffered by an attack on Truk when it was unexpected. The unexpected happens and accusing some one of gamey play and calling for a house rule just because one suffered a bad result from the unexpected is just plain sad!


Well its different if the game designers made it that way becouse they researched the history of the unit and had to make some compromise as if someone is doing it on purpose. Using off map hq saying that they probably exist somewhere else is saying as japanese could totaly attack bombay or calcutta instead of PH. Its just pure theory. Some HQ arrive 6 months or several years after the game started. Assigning units ot them is same as assigning units to paper unit with no commanders, orders, supplies.

The game is more like a board game but some sense of reality should exist. If allied opponent is facing some restriction japanese player should follow same rules. Was it done in past? If it would be done would it work? Those are questions that should validate any HR. Game allows for example to store 50-100 b bombers on atoll lvl 1 airfield (not for attack just for transfer storage) just with one engineer unit. Does it seems real? Ofc no that commander would be voted as digby of the year becouse you cant just leave ammunition and aicrafts open to be destroyed by possible pacific thunderstorm. IF we treat it as board game then everythink is possible and no HR makes any sense if we approach the game with some some sort of reality then common sense should apply.

< Message edited by armin -- 5/21/2012 1:11:20 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 64
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 3:31:53 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.

_____________________________



(in reply to armin)
Post #: 65
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 3:54:04 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2058
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
If the opponent is paying full PPs what's the complaint?

Not that I see evidence of it here but regarding single ship task forces

I'm not a big fan of the single ship TF as I've witnessed first hand (over many turns) to what an abundance of them does to the game engine. Every game has it's own set of rules but I view it as fair if the opponent is using single ships to escape the Japanese during the first few weeks but if it's an operational procedure to head north with supply, use numbers of them to confuse or make opponents use up sorties and ammo, and/or saturate the area with one point singe ship task forces to confuse the game engine is really not someone I'd enjoy playing.




_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 66
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 4:26:06 PM   
armin


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

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.



If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.
2. People and assets were distributed elswhere in other units.

It would be less gamey if you do it one month before it arrives but 5-6 month in the future is not reasonable at all. You can pretend that you moved the people assets into place and thats why you are assigning troos to hq that arrives 5 months into future. But same pretending can couse using fast turns to invade DEI or move KB to australia with explanation: "they tried to be stealthy" Simply its not realistical and unreasonable.

< Message edited by armin -- 5/21/2012 4:44:07 PM >

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 67
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 4:39:08 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6978
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Since both sides can assign units to a HQ due to arrive months or years away, how is that gamey?? Neither side is getting an advantage over the other.

Single ship TF - I have a HR that allows the Allies to do so for the rest of Dec '42. Afterwards, they cannot form them up deliberately. For Japan, they can as they may need to try to resupply and evac by-passed bases later on. The big things is the AI coding will often have those single ship ignored by Nell/Betty that easily in range. My Allied opponent is having them move back and forth across the South Pacific this way.

_____________________________


(in reply to armin)
Post #: 68
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 4:50:36 PM   
armin


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since both sides can assign units to a HQ due to arrive months or years away, how is that gamey?? Neither side is getting an advantage over the other.

Single ship TF - I have a HR that allows the Allies to do so for the rest of Dec '42. Afterwards, they cannot form them up deliberately. For Japan, they can as they may need to try to resupply and evac by-passed bases later on. The big things is the AI coding will often have those single ship ignored by Nell/Betty that easily in range. My Allied opponent is having them move back and forth across the South Pacific this way.


Becouse if simply somethink doesnt exist then it doesnt exist. You cant use car that you didnt bought becouse its not on market yet...I added some comments to the previous post. You can pretend that the hq exist in the past even if people and assets are not in place but then you cant wonder when japan player starts producing shindens in 42-43. Then you dont play realisticaly but its fantasy mod. There is a line between realistical gameplay and fantasy.

< Message edited by armin -- 5/21/2012 4:51:38 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 69
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 4:54:18 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1688
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.



If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.
2. People and assets were distributed elswhere in other units.

It would be less gamey if you do it one month before it arrives but 5-6 month in the future is not reasonable at all. You can pretend that you moved the people assets into place and thats why you are assigning troos to hq that arrives 5 months into future. But same pretending can couse using fast turns to invade DEI or move KB to australia with explanation: "they tried to be stealthy" Simply its not realistical and unreasonable.


I think it's lot more "gamey" to assing every unit to Southern Army just because HQ does not matter...

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 70
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 5:10:37 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16075
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.


If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.



Actually, this does not make it gamey.

This may make YOU think it's gamey, but no one else has to think it is gamey, with the exception of your opponent.

"Gamey" is a 100% subjective adjective, and is completely open to everyone's individual interpretation. If you play against the AI, then only your opinion matters. If you play against another person, then only your 2 opinions matter, and they should match, or at least be able to agree on a middle ground.

EVERYONE else is free to think exactly what they want about whether a particular part of the game is "gamey."

Please try to remember that you are only expressing your personal opinion about something when you declare it "gamey", and you do not have to "convince" anyone else to agree with your opinion, unless you are trying to arrange a PBEM match with that person.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 71
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 5:39:46 PM   
armin


Posts: 57
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
We were speaking about difference between realistical game and fantasy game. If it is fantasy game then obviously no logic or historical accuracy applies. If someone wants to have shindens in 42 or KB in australia, or have all training units from US in australia or DEI it is obviously the choice of the person who makes it but then again it cant be called realistical gameplay. If there is some option to make it differently doesnt make its historicaly accurate.

< Message edited by armin -- 5/21/2012 5:47:21 PM >

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 72
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 5:46:08 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8324
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.


But it's perfectly fine for the Japanese player to know on 12/7/1941 what aircraft carrier will be delivered to the USN on a date certain in 1946? Or how many of each aircraft model will be delivered per month when US designers hadn't even concieved of the model yet? Gotcha.

The code allows assignment of restricted LCUs to unrestricted LCUs if the PPs are paid. PPs are scarce. That's the constraint. Not history.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 73
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 5:55:25 PM   
armin


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.


But it's perfectly fine for the Japanese player to know on 12/7/1941 what aircraft carrier will be delivered to the USN on a date certain in 1946? Or how many of each aircraft model will be delivered per month when US designers hadn't even concieved of the model yet? Gotcha.

The code allows assignment of restricted LCUs to unrestricted LCUs if the PPs are paid. PPs are scarce. That's the constraint. Not history.


Wrong - arrival dates can be randomized. Again realistical game vs fantasy game. And the pp points are one of the many things that make witp ae more of board game then a simulator. I prefer to stick with realism someone can like fantasy gameplay i dont mind. To everyone that what he likes best.


< Message edited by armin -- 5/21/2012 5:57:33 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 74
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 5:56:35 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
I am having this discussion with my opponent right now ...

The IJ invaded OZ ... historical???

Over the past year I have awkened the Indian Army and marched them from Imphal to Katha anticiapting this move into Darwin . my oppoent is fuming that the Indian army would never do this and the IJA would ?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 75
RE: Question about house rule - 5/21/2012 10:21:14 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8324
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.


But it's perfectly fine for the Japanese player to know on 12/7/1941 what aircraft carrier will be delivered to the USN on a date certain in 1946? Or how many of each aircraft model will be delivered per month when US designers hadn't even concieved of the model yet? Gotcha.

The code allows assignment of restricted LCUs to unrestricted LCUs if the PPs are paid. PPs are scarce. That's the constraint. Not history.


Wrong - arrival dates can be randomized. Again realistical game vs fantasy game. And the pp points are one of the many things that make witp ae more of board game then a simulator. I prefer to stick with realism someone can like fantasy gameplay i dont mind. To everyone that what he likes best.



Arrival dates can be randomized up to 60 whole days. Wheee! Even so, the Japanese player knows exactly which ships will be delivered--within 60 days--before the class was even designed. Same with planes. How many Allied jets were on the drawing boards and scheduled for production the day PH was attacked?

Your argument is Swiss cheese as all of the Poor Poor Japanese Player history arguemnts are. That said, you want a simulator, look elsewhere. That aguement was hashed out years before you showed up around here.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/21/2012 10:22:03 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 76
RE: Question about house rule - 5/22/2012 6:51:17 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
armin, I too think there is no gameyness in assining units to HQs with arrival date in the future.

Why should it? If, for example, your intention is to set up a strong defense for the Solomons before the
Japanese did historically, this should prevent you to assign a unit to the 17th early?

If your intention is to build a specific OOB with PP investement, just because you start bottom up instead of top down that does not
change the underlying logic or make it less legitimate.


Crackaces put it quite well: based on your argumentation it should be questionable to invade Australia as Japan. Or India. Or Noumea. If you are forbidden to
do anything beyond the historical Japanese operations, for the Japanese player it does not make sense to play at all.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 77
RE: Question about house rule - 5/22/2012 9:16:53 AM   
armin


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

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

armin, I too think there is no gameyness in assining units to HQs with arrival date in the future.

Why should it? If, for example, your intention is to set up a strong defense for the Solomons before the
Japanese did historically, this should prevent you to assign a unit to the 17th early?

If your intention is to build a specific OOB with PP investement, just because you start bottom up instead of top down that does not
change the underlying logic or make it less legitimate.


Crackaces put it quite well: based on your argumentation it should be questionable to invade Australia as Japan. Or India. Or Noumea. If you are forbidden to
do anything beyond the historical Japanese operations, for the Japanese player it does not make sense to play at all.



I get your point my reasoning behind assigning units to hq is that the game works as board game and alllows units to move faster and further then in reality it was possible. Im not against not historical invasion if well prepared but sometimes for me as for japanese is too easy to advance on certain places and same goes for my american opponents. Most deployment looks like they would be done in late 42-43 and its early stage. If PP points are not used properly or someone is saving them it can create huge imbalance. And in the game you can set most of the things or they are on computer preset settings but pp system is beyond any control. Of course someone can use it to buy leaders, units etc. However its outside factor that has nothink to do with reality. PP points use should be strictly limited and some things that are payed should be for free. Like for example changing leaders as basicaly its your job as leader of the army. Upgrading ok makes some sense its payed. Then we have chaging of hq which should be for free again becouse its basicaly responsibility of central command. It just creates mess in current games becouse lot of stuff depends on PP system.

< Message edited by armin -- 5/22/2012 9:18:14 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 78
RE: Question about house rule - 5/22/2012 11:58:14 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

armin, I too think there is no gameyness in assining units to HQs with arrival date in the future.

Why should it? If, for example, your intention is to set up a strong defense for the Solomons before the
Japanese did historically, this should prevent you to assign a unit to the 17th early?

If your intention is to build a specific OOB with PP investement, just because you start bottom up instead of top down that does not
change the underlying logic or make it less legitimate.


Crackaces put it quite well: based on your argumentation it should be questionable to invade Australia as Japan. Or India. Or Noumea. If you are forbidden to
do anything beyond the historical Japanese operations, for the Japanese player it does not make sense to play at all.



I get your point my reasoning behind assigning units to hq is that the game works as board game and alllows units to move faster and further then in reality it was possible. Im not against not historical invasion if well prepared but sometimes for me as for japanese is too easy to advance on certain places and same goes for my american opponents. Most deployment looks like they would be done in late 42-43 and its early stage. If PP points are not used properly or someone is saving them it can create huge imbalance. And in the game you can set most of the things or they are on computer preset settings but pp system is beyond any control. Of course someone can use it to buy leaders, units etc. However its outside factor that has nothink to do with reality. PP points use should be strictly limited and some things that are payed should be for free. Like for example changing leaders as basicaly its your job as leader of the army. Upgrading ok makes some sense its payed. Then we have chaging of hq which should be for free again becouse its basicaly responsibility of central command. It just creates mess in current games becouse lot of stuff depends on PP system.



That PP has nothing to do with reality is incorrect.

As with many other game features it is an abstraction of reality. It is an attempt to quantify an administrative and/or political cost
accompanied with certain command decisions.

What you are critizising is a design decision. The design decision was done to at the same time limit, but on the other hand enable,
the ability of the player to deviate from historical paths and explore new options.

PP management (in combination with HRs) is a part of that system, which in my opinion works pretty well. Saving PP for specific occasions
is part of the game.

The huge imbalance you claim to see simply does not exist. The above situations is the same for both players, an imbalance is only possible if
one uses specific features of the game mechanisms and the other does not. This can and should be discussed per HR, so not an issue.


And last: Usually it is too easy to advance (for both sides) because you are not playing a DBB grand campaign, which you should in case
you seek historical accuracy.

As I see it there is not really much to debate about...


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to armin)
Post #: 79
RE: Question about house rule - 5/22/2012 4:59:51 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
If you are trying to promote "reality" versus fantasy, then the player as the commander in chief should have the ability to create new unrestricted HQs at will. After all, this is how the commanders in the real war handled things. The HQs in the game are a result of their decisions based upon how the war played out. To restrict the player to using only those HQs in the historical timeline ignores the reality of the game.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 80
RE: Question about house rule - 5/22/2012 5:12:11 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4526
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Actually this thread reminded me of an old idea I had, which basically was that all units arrive under restricted command. Then you allow, or better force, the player to create new
command HQs using PP, and afterwards unrestrict and assign units to those commands further using PP.

What you currently pay for is a deviation from the historical path, with the modification you could entirely create your own command structure from the start.

It could be an interesting mod, but balancing would be extremely hazardous.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 81
RE: Question about house rule - 5/22/2012 5:38:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8324
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Actually this thread reminded me of an old idea I had, which basically was that all units arrive under restricted command. Then you allow, or better force, the player to create new
command HQs using PP, and afterwards unrestrict and assign units to those commands further using PP.

What you currently pay for is a deviation from the historical path, with the modification you could entirely create your own command structure from the start.

It could be an interesting mod, but balancing would be extremely hazardous.


It would be an interesting mod, but I don't think it would work without extensive EXE changes. The reason being you'd need variable PP award levels by era, at least for the Allies. You'd need a whole lot in 1942 to survive, and next to nothing in 1945 once the OOB was on-map and baked in.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 82
RE: Question about house rule - 5/25/2012 3:23:42 AM   
Icedawg


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

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If the opponent is paying full PPs what's the complaint?

Not that I see evidence of it here but regarding single ship task forces

I'm not a big fan of the single ship TF as I've witnessed first hand (over many turns) to what an abundance of them does to the game engine. Every game has it's own set of rules but I view it as fair if the opponent is using single ships to escape the Japanese during the first few weeks but if it's an operational procedure to head north with supply, use numbers of them to confuse or make opponents use up sorties and ammo, and/or saturate the area with one point singe ship task forces to confuse the game engine is really not someone I'd enjoy playing.





+1

I like your distinction. Ships fleeing an area for the purpose of making an undetected escape is perfectly fine. But the other instances you point out - 100% gamey.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 83
RE: Question about house rule - 5/25/2012 3:28:40 AM   
Icedawg


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since both sides can assign units to a HQ due to arrive months or years away, how is that gamey?? Neither side is getting an advantage over the other.

Single ship TF - I have a HR that allows the Allies to do so for the rest of Dec '42. Afterwards, they cannot form them up deliberately. For Japan, they can as they may need to try to resupply and evac by-passed bases later on. The big things is the AI coding will often have those single ship ignored by Nell/Betty that easily in range. My Allied opponent is having them move back and forth across the South Pacific this way.


+1

Sounds like you, Sulu Sea and I should form an anti-single-ship-TF club!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 84
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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]
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

0.109