Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 8:03:50 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
CR explicitly stated on page one of his AAR that there were NO house rules. To me that would mean PJH can march troops out of Manchucko or Korea as he wishes.

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 31
STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 8:47:18 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

CR explicitly stated on page one of his AAR that there were NO house rules. To me that would mean PJH can march troops out of Manchucko or Korea as he wishes.


CR quote from his AAR

That's me, your friendly neighborhood editor. :)

By the way, 116th IJA Div. showed up in far west China. (That's one of the good Kwantung units NYGiants mentioned yesterday). I've emailed Steve to ask him if he's paying to transfer units. I certainly hope he is. If he isn't we seem to be playing with different notions of propriety and frankly discussing what's pushing the envelope.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

Edit: Guess name change didnt work.... fail me!

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/11/2012 8:48:50 PM >

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 32
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:03:34 PM   
Justus2


Posts: 351
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline
shows up right on the main page, but didnt change the title on the AAR sub-page. Maybe only thread starter can change it?


_____________________________

Currently Playing:
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition (learning, not really playing ;) )
LST 325 Fanboy!

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 33
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:06:37 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yeah PMed CR to tell Jeffk, presumable he is only one that can change it.

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 34
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:07:24 PM   
Dan Nichols


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

CR explicitly stated on page one of his AAR that there were NO house rules. To me that would mean PJH can march troops out of Manchucko or Korea as he wishes.


CR quote from his AAR

That's me, your friendly neighborhood editor. :)

By the way, 116th IJA Div. showed up in far west China. (That's one of the good Kwantung units NYGiants mentioned yesterday). I've emailed Steve to ask him if he's paying to transfer units. I certainly hope he is. If he isn't we seem to be playing with different notions of propriety and frankly discussing what's pushing the envelope.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

Edit: Guess name change didnt work.... fail me!


From page 1 of the same AAR:
Thanks for the input and suggestions, gents. A few comments in reply:

1. I'm trying to find a happy medium in which an enhanced Japan can fight on more even terms more deeply into the games. So if the R&D allows PH to produce better aircraft in 1943 and 1944, that's okay. On the flip side, I was a little worried about 1942, when Japanese airpower under PDU On can be a killer and yet PDU Off seems to swing things the other way. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium, so I'm hoping better Allied torps will even things out a bit.

2. I think this will be a tough game. PH has the experience and level of aggression that should make 1942 a rip-roarer.

3. While PH (and Nemo) enjoy the mind games, I don't. I generally avoid commentary for that reason, because I don't like giving away intel, and because I strive to avoid comments that can seem boastful (even an innocent comment coming after a big victory can strike an opponent the wrong way). So, my way of playing the mental aspect of the game is to ignore it.

4. We have no house rules. Were I playing Nemo, and were Nemo strident in the "no house rules" proclamation, the first thing I would do is empty out both Manila and Pearl Harbor. But in many games that just won't sit right even in a "no holds bar" atmosphere. So I won't do anything radical on the opening day of the war.


(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 35
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:12:10 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Dont disagree on that Dan, but its non the less not the perception of CR, judging from his comments. That was what i was trying to point out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

4. We have no house rules. Were I playing Nemo, and were Nemo strident in the "no house rules" proclamation, the first thing I would do is empty out both Manila and Pearl Harbor. But in many games that just won't sit right even in a "no holds bar" atmosphere. So I won't do anything radical on the opening day of the war.


Reading the rest of the paragraph prolly suggests more than what u have highlighted. So while he says no HR, in fact he suggests unwritten rules to be followed. This is by the nature of it problematic.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/11/2012 9:17:51 PM >

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 36
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:14:18 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
I understand what you are saying, it seems that CR is not sure what he agreed to. If there are no house rules, then there are no house rules.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 37
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:15:28 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I edited my previous post to fully explain my point if u would reread, thx.

Rasmus

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 38
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:35:41 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4165
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Reading the rest of the paragraph prolly suggests more than what u have highlighted. So while he says no HR, in fact he suggests unwritten rules to be followed.


Yes -- but he only said he wouldn't do anything radical on the opening day of the war. Subsequent turns are something else again.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 39
RE: STAY OUT! Aka name change - No CR or PJH please. - 8/11/2012 9:44:47 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

Reading the rest of the paragraph prolly suggests more than what u have highlighted. So while he says no HR, in fact he suggests unwritten rules to be followed.


Yes -- but he only said he wouldn't do anything radical on the opening day of the war. Subsequent turns are something else again.


Yet they have discussed validity of actions ever since. Use of para for shock attack, no para frag intel gathering, issue of map edge/ off map ports fleeing. So both have engaged in the question of what is "kosher" or not. Obvious since both have posed questions in their AARs to what others think.
Im not argueing if u dont read it very stricktly that the have a no HR game. Just saying at leased CR hasnt thot that to be quite the case and IMO nor have PJH. Tho its clear that they have differed on what is what. Or there would never been any question to ask others in their AARs on to what they think are kosher. Nor had there been any discussions between the 2 of them regarding this. We know this has happened. Its a questions of shades of grey.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/11/2012 9:49:00 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 40
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 10:42:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Moose,

How would those forces actually get to Singapore at this time? They would all wind up on a diving expedition.


Sunda Strait, with, as I said, the whole RN as escort. Coming from CT PH is strategically blind for most of the trip. If CR tried to run the Sumatra/Malaysia gap he'd be toast. Sunda I think is doable. Or was a month ago.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 41
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 10:43:37 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I have a question, regarding CRs recent posts on using PPs for transferring units from Manchuria. I didn't want to bring it up in the AAR, as I haven't played PBEM so I don't really know how this would be taken. I know it is frequently listed as a House Rule in other PBEM/AARs, but this game they specifically did not, to me that would imply they accepted taht PP would not have to be paid? Conversely, did CR pay PP to move US forces into Canada? That seems to me to be a similar situation, right? I am not trying to blame either side, just wondering if I am understanding the issue.


CR has the USMC operating in India, so . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 42
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 10:54:30 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I have a question, regarding CRs recent posts on using PPs for transferring units from Manchuria. I didn't want to bring it up in the AAR, as I haven't played PBEM so I don't really know how this would be taken. I know it is frequently listed as a House Rule in other PBEM/AARs, but this game they specifically did not, to me that would imply they accepted taht PP would not have to be paid? Conversely, did CR pay PP to move US forces into Canada? That seems to me to be a similar situation, right? I am not trying to blame either side, just wondering if I am understanding the issue.


CR has the USMC operating in India, so . . .


He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/11/2012 10:56:13 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 43
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 11:12:21 PM   
Justus2


Posts: 351
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

I have a question, regarding CRs recent posts on using PPs for transferring units from Manchuria. I didn't want to bring it up in the AAR, as I haven't played PBEM so I don't really know how this would be taken. I know it is frequently listed as a House Rule in other PBEM/AARs, but this game they specifically did not, to me that would imply they accepted taht PP would not have to be paid? Conversely, did CR pay PP to move US forces into Canada? That seems to me to be a similar situation, right? I am not trying to blame either side, just wondering if I am understanding the issue.


CR has the USMC operating in India, so . . .


He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

That's why I asked about Canada, to me that is the most similar comparison - not loading on ship, just a land crossing, but a different command area (crossing natioanl borders, which technically Manchuria isn't even doing that).

I know CR mentioned on a couple of the Army units, that he moved to CT without paying PP, only paid to load on ships. that to me seems a bigger stretch than moving around within China. But again, I havent dealth with this before, so wanted some other opinions


_____________________________

Currently Playing:
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition (learning, not really playing ;) )
LST 325 Fanboy!

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 44
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 11:21:30 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

That's why I asked about Canada, to me that is the most similar comparison - not loading on ship, just a land crossing, but a different command area (crossing natioanl borders, which technically Manchuria isn't even doing that).


Well i've seen different versions of the rule. Some specificly mentions China/Korea/Manchuria and India/Burma/China on other side. Under that version/versions i see no problem in doing US-Canada. My assumption is if u specificly mention the above only, then thats for a reason. Canada-US being one of the more obvious.

Others have a more strict no crossing borders periode. Under that Canada-US wouldnt be allowed, as i see it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2
I know CR mentioned on a couple of the Army units, that he moved to CT without paying PP, only paid to load on ships. that to me seems a bigger stretch than moving around within China. But again, I havent dealth with this before, so wanted some other opinions


Yeah i noticed this too. I would say its iffy, assuming u using the 2nd version of above rules, not in the first. US is not the same as CT holding box. On the other hand he has been specific about paying PPs for units to go into new on map locations/using them in combat. At leased it seems like that from comments he has made. What he actually have done i by nature of it I cant know.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/11/2012 11:24:41 PM >

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 45
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 11:52:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.



He has said he has bought out restricted units. That's not what we're talking about here.

If the rule is limited to restricted units then moving Japanese divisions around in Asia is fine. The HR is usually national units crossing borders. While the USMC can operate in India as an unrestricted unit, there is no way you could argue that is fine and moving Japanese forces from Man. to China isn't.

I'm with the "no HRs mean no HRs" camp. When you say that and then carp you end up in a bad place.


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 46
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/11/2012 11:55:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

That's why I asked about Canada, to me that is the most similar comparison - not loading on ship, just a land crossing, but a different command area (crossing natioanl borders, which technically Manchuria isn't even doing that).


Well i've seen different versions of the rule. Some specificly mentions China/Korea/Manchuria and India/Burma/China on other side. Under that version/versions i see no problem in doing US-Canada. My assumption is if u specificly mention the above only, then thats for a reason. Canada-US being one of the more obvious.

Others have a more strict no crossing borders periode. Under that Canada-US wouldnt be allowed, as i see it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2
I know CR mentioned on a couple of the Army units, that he moved to CT without paying PP, only paid to load on ships. that to me seems a bigger stretch than moving around within China. But again, I havent dealth with this before, so wanted some other opinions


Yeah i noticed this too. I would say its iffy, assuming u using the 2nd version of above rules, not in the first. US is not the same as CT holding box. On the other hand he has been specific about paying PPs for units to go into new on map locations/using them in combat. At leased it seems like that from comments he has made. What he actually have done i by nature of it I cant know.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



My understanding is he's using the off-map Move techniquw to move restricted units to CT while they're still unbought. They'll do that even if they won't board ships. You can do this with aircraft as well. When you have PPs you buy them and they're already in CT. In a no-HR enviro it's fine. In one with a no-borders buy-out rule I'd say it isn't.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/11/2012 11:56:27 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 47
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 12:16:19 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.



He has said he has bought out restricted units. That's not what we're talking about here.

If the rule is limited to restricted units then moving Japanese divisions around in Asia is fine. The HR is usually national units crossing borders. While the USMC can operate in India as an unrestricted unit, there is no way you could argue that is fine and moving Japanese forces from Man. to China isn't.


I totally disagree. First of all there are several different version of border crossing rules so any answer would have to be taken in that view.

The restricting units in manchuria has to do with else u can over run china in 2 months flat. There is a garrison limit for Mancuria that is significant lower than what was there until later in the war. The idea behind resticting units in manchuria is to avoid that they overun China in 2 months which isnt in it self realistic.
Similar on allied side u have limits to make it impossible to move the entire Chinease army out of china and into burma/india or where ever. Similar restricting units from going between Burma and India umlimited to slow the eventual counter offensive into Burma. Possibly but this is really depence on how the rule is set up. Moving to Canada from US or US to CT. Depence wholly on how the rule is worded.

When ever a japanease unit is bought out. Its free to go any where. Any unrestricted japanease unit is free to go any where. There are no limits on what historicly there would be with the inter navy-army rivalry/political game. U can do any thing u want. I have no problem with that. Its a game ppl should be allowed under rules and possible HR to go make operations where they like.

Then the same can only be in effect for the allied side. Unrestricted units as well as units bought out JUST LIKE on the japanease side is allowed to go any where. Yes just as on the japanease side u can do things that is counter to historic thinking, but just as japanease side u should be allowed within rules and HR to do operations just as u like, in regards to what go where. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Saying that USMC unrestricted units going to India is the same as allowing the army in manchuria to go any where is similar not remotely compareble. Removing the Manchuria restrictions would be equal to allowing/moving the entire chinease army to go to India.

quote:


I'm with the "no HRs mean no HRs" camp. When you say that and then carp you end up in a bad place.


Dont disagree why i call it above problematic. Im just saying obviously no HR didnt to CR mean no HR, but play reasonble. Is that bad yeah. I would even say no HR didnt mean no HR to PJH either. Else there would never have been any issue with his perception of CRs off map box fleeing.
If any thing is allowed, nothing can be a problem. Obvious neither of the 2 thinks that, they have limits on reasonble. If u wana blame CR sure he has "failed", but the apparently reluctdance to see PJH doing the same dont do CR justice.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2012 1:37:04 AM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 48
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 12:21:24 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

My understanding is he's using the off-map Move techniquw to move restricted units to CT while they're still unbought. They'll do that even if they won't board ships. You can do this with aircraft as well. When you have PPs you buy them and they're already in CT. In a no-HR enviro it's fine. In one with a no-borders buy-out rule I'd say it isn't.


Yes, but as too allowedness(new word?) depence as i say on wording on HR. Ill happily show u different wordings if u wish, but the assumption u make is that its a no border crossing at all rule. It is in some cases. In others not.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 49
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 12:27:16 AM   
Justus2


Posts: 351
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.



He has said he has bought out restricted units. That's not what we're talking about here.

If the rule is limited to restricted units then moving Japanese divisions around in Asia is fine. The HR is usually national units crossing borders. While the USMC can operate in India as an unrestricted unit, there is no way you could argue that is fine and moving Japanese forces from Man. to China isn't.

I'm with the "no HRs mean no HRs" camp. When you say that and then carp you end up in a bad place.



I totally disagree. First of all there are several different version of border crossing rules so any answer would have to be taken in that view.

The restricting units in manchuria has to do with else u can over run china in 2 months flat. There is a garrison limit for Mancuria that is significant lower than what was there until later in the war. The idea behind resticting units in manchuria is to avoid that they overun China in 2 months which isnt in it self realistic.
Similar on allied side u have limits to make it impossible to move the entire Chinease army out of china and into burma/india or where ever. Similar restricting units from going between Burma and India umlimited to slow the eventual counter offensive into Burma. Possibly but this is really depence on how the rule is setted up. Moving to Canada from US or US to CT. Depence wholly on how the rule is worded.

When ever a japanease unit is bought out. Its free to go any where. Any unrestricted japanease unit is free to go any where. There are no limits on what historicly there would be with the inter navy-army rivalry/political game. U can do any thing u want. I have no problem with that. Its a game ppl should be allowed under rules and possible HR to go make operations where they like.

Then the same can only be in effect for the allied side. Unrestricted units as well as units bought out JUST LIKE on the japanease side is allowed to go any where. Yes just as on the japanease side u can do things that is counter to historic thinking, but just as japanease side u should be allowed within rules and HR to do operations just as u like, in regards to what go where. What is good for the gooose is good for the gander.

Saying that USMC unrestricted units going to India is the same as allowing the army in manchuria to go any is similar not remotely compareble. Removing the Manchuria restrictions would be equal to allowing/moving the entire chinease army to go to India.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


I agree, once a unit is bought out (from either side) it is fair game to go wherever you want - same if it started unrestricted. My comparison with Manchuria to China would be US to Canada, or India-Burma-China: Using restricted units, but moving into other areas (cross national or command lines).

bottom line, though, is I think this discussion is confirming my original impression - if either player thought there should be restrictions, they should have made a rule. No HR means no HR - Pay the PP to load on a ship, otherwise they can go wherever the engine lets them go.

_____________________________

Currently Playing:
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition (learning, not really playing ;) )
LST 325 Fanboy!

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 50
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 1:03:29 AM   
Hanzberger


Posts: 771
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: SE Pennsylvania
Status: offline
Meanwhile, back to the game......I wonder why PH hasn't bombed in NOPAC. I never realized the implications of it until this game. Yes CR has put up some fighters but I would think that the numbers would favor PH when it comes to replacements. Maybe someone would like to clarify this.
Looks like PH is getting China under control also. I think both these guys like to show us the chips on the table but not the cards in their hands...

_____________________________


Japan AC wire chart here
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2769286&mpage=1&key=?

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 51
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 1:13:32 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well problem is that PJH currently has to do missions at pretty long range. Getting fatigued. If he runs in too layered CAP and with CR having the numbers the loss rate prolly wont be all that good, if not decidedly bad. Longer ranged mission is bad for ops loss rate too. Plus lost pilots vs not lost pilots, but that ofc doesnt directly matter regarding number of lost frames.
IIRC. PJH said he had a Zero unit up there with fairly new pilots. In order to win the "air war" he wold have to commit more planes or get closer IMO.
Bombing if any bases with any figthers on em in numbers with out haivng made sure ur sweep worked prety well would likely spell disaster for the bombers. He can bomb the empthy bases and he tried that once. Didnt get any real result. Again long range not helping.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2012 1:16:34 AM >

(in reply to Hanzberger)
Post #: 52
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 1:35:02 AM   
Schlemiel

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline
Even the paying pp to cross national borders rule can very, very easily be skirted (mostly by the Allies). It's quite possible to have nearly full strength 27th, 40th, 41st and American Infantry divisions deployable by Feb or March 42 for ~ 150pp total. There are notable opportunity costs for doing so, but it is quite possible to do in whole or in part. I've always wondered what the pay full price to cross national borders people do about some of the mixed restriction units as well (especially 24th and 25th divisions in Hawaii). Do they have to switch to something like south pac to recombine?


In the context of the game, pulling Manchurian troops into China as a hedge against the super stack and pulling other Allies into India in the context of the invasion make contextual sense, so I wouldn't complain about either myself.



I'm intrigued by CR's decision to pull back in the northern front in China. I was very curious whether PH could have adequately grabbed road control to interdict supply flow (the only thing he needed to do there in the strategic sense) if CR had continued his forward defense near Lanchow. Sadly, I doubt we'll get much insight into why CR made that choice, but the developing situation was fascinating me until that point. I do think PH's China strategy is quite solid to starve China that badly for supply.


Does the peanut gallery think CR would have been better to deliberate attack against that Japanese force instead of shock attack? Would the raw av advantage have been enough to grind down the Japanese in a timely fashion?

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 53
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 1:51:31 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3032
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Schlemiel

Even the paying pp to cross national borders rule can very, very easily be skirted (mostly by the Allies). It's quite possible to have nearly full strength 27th, 40th, 41st and American Infantry divisions deployable by Feb or March 42 for ~ 150pp total. There are notable opportunity costs for doing so, but it is quite possible to do in whole or in part. I've always wondered what the pay full price to cross national borders people do about some of the mixed restriction units as well (especially 24th and 25th divisions in Hawaii). Do they have to switch to something like south pac to recombine?


Well its clear when u play with those rules u dont curcumvent the rules, but pay the full price. Whats the point in having a rule if u dont follow it.
Ppl swicth the 2 regs of each div on Hawaii to pacific command the same as regs from each div at the west coast then recombine and its unrestricted as every thing else.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/12/2012 1:53:19 AM >

(in reply to Schlemiel)
Post #: 54
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 7:58:53 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5119
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: online
A major difference between Manchuria/China and USA/Canada is that the Kwantung Army could find itself in Karachi or Singapore whereas the US Army gets to Alaska.
I dont think that this is going to work out for the long term game.
CR seems to want to play by his idea of what is right, in a game where PJH is playing the game.

Its like a knife fight where PJH has bought a gun.

Sad to see, and I dont understand why, CR is considering a northern campaign, cant see any reason for it(are they playing for points or till the bitter end??) except there are enemies on US soil.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 55
RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH p... - 8/12/2012 11:45:20 AM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1927
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
Yikes! Looks like CR might be down a British CV. A picture was just posted of one with an ammo explosion. This is not CR's game. never saw him lose A CV this early before.

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 56
RE: ******* from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please. - 8/12/2012 2:48:34 PM   
Justus2


Posts: 351
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

A major difference between Manchuria/China and USA/Canada is that the Kwantung Army could find itself in Karachi or Singapore whereas the US Army gets to Alaska.
I dont think that this is going to work out for the long term game.
CR seems to want to play by his idea of what is right, in a game where PJH is playing the game.

Its like a knife fight where PJH has bought a gun.

Sad to see, and I dont understand why, CR is considering a northern campaign, cant see any reason for it(are they playing for points or till the bitter end??) except there are enemies on US soil.


Agreed, I can see the strategic differences, just trying to find something comparable in terms of the (unwritten) rules.

I think you are right about CR's mindset, which is ironic, because in his game vs Chez, it was the opposite, Chez felt they should operate under 'historical' bounds, and CR was playing the game. Your question about VPs I think is similar, PJH certainly seems to be playing for points, but IIRC, CR has commented in his previous games that he doesn't really pay much attention to points.

Definitely has convinced me when I do jump into PBEM that I want to spell out the HR up front (and if we agree to no HR on something, it means anything goes!). Unwritten rules rarely work.

_____________________________

Currently Playing:
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition (learning, not really playing ;) )
LST 325 Fanboy!

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 57
RE: ******* from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please. - 8/12/2012 3:20:45 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Even the paying pp to cross national borders rule can very, very easily be skirted (mostly by the Allies). It's quite possible to have nearly full strength 27th, 40th, 41st and American Infantry divisions deployable by Feb or March 42 for ~ 150pp total. There are notable opportunity costs for doing so, but it is quite possible to do in whole or in part. I've always wondered what the pay full price to cross national borders people do about some of the mixed restriction units as well (especially 24th and 25th divisions in Hawaii). Do they have to switch to something like south pac to recombine?


The system that was as I understand desgned to provide historical context and manage the pace of play is badly broken. In a game against the computer the only true restriction programmed into the game is not being able to load restricted LCU's onto ships.

What is extermely interesting to me from an historical standpoint is that many of the Indian "restricted" units historically crossed the India/Burmise Border in Operation "Extended Capital". In 1942 the British planners were utterly convinced that an army could not be supplied from Imphal to Katha, and chose to comitt forces against Akayb. They also decided they could not supply a big Army in Burma thus many units were kept in reserve ... then the IJ's 15th Army proved them wrong crossing the very same once thought impassble terrain.... suddenly on Nov 8 1944 all those "restricted" units found there way through the Kahaw Valley and eventually into the Irrawaddy Valley ...cultimating with the fall of Rangoon in May 1945. I am not sure if General Slim payed the PP's or not ...

However, pull off an "Operation Extended Capital" in 1942 .. especally in scenario one .. and the IJ are in trouble .... so I guess we need home rules to make a game out of it ...but it might be more workable to just let the games rule sytem prohibit loading of troops but allow crossed borders as per my historical situation above.

Just another note .. it is kind of funny to me discussing PP's and crossed borders playing scenario #2. We have a most ahistroical situation in which Japan builds up not to fight a colonal war, but world dominace on the scale of Adolf Hitler. In some ways far more dangerious as we have an Army accompanied by a very strong Navy. Yet units are withdrawn to go fight Hitler as Japan threatens the West Coast.

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 58
RE: ******* from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please. - 8/12/2012 4:47:19 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3579
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
General Slim. That dude was so gamey - I totally dropped my PBEM against him.

_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 59
RE: ******* from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please. - 8/12/2012 5:25:36 PM   
Flicker

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 11/24/2011
From: Rocket City USA
Status: offline
Hanzberger - won't PH need to build up NOPAC airfields before starting the bombing campaign?

It looks to me like PH is preparing NOPAC for his trap - we saw the image he posted of his Aleutians "bait" plan. I'm somewhat confused though - does PH plan to build up the airfields on the bait bases to make them more enticing? If not, then why expect CR to land on them?

Maybe PH is busy with engineers in NOPAC and doesn't mind the quiet right now. It seems that many of his bombers are busy plastering China and that when those assets are freed up they'll become the irritant that gets CR looking 'North, to Alaska'.


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: War & Peas from the peanut gallery - No CR or PJH please. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.127