Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

General Slim. That dude was so gamey - I totally dropped my PBEM against him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc


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.

You're right. Having the USMC defending a part of the British Empire, in 1942 when the US was on its heels, and the US political culture was not exactly pro-colonialist, is pure science fiction. It would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

In contrast, the Manchurian forces were under unified political and miltary command. The issue in using Manchurian forces in China proper was a risk assessment vis a vis the USSR. It was not a quesiton of national sovereignty.

The associated issue, IN THE GAME, of whether using Manchurian forces in China allow China to be steamrolled is separate from what issue I'm addressing, which is what's allowed in terms of HRs when the players have mutually agreed there are no HRs? The USSR activation check and balance is always there; that handcuffs PH to an extent. Beyond that CR agreed to a no-HR game.

A fourth issue driven by the code is the fact that yellow Resticted LCUs can walk anywhere on a connected land-mass, but can't get on ships. We don't have coded borders, which goes back to my first point above. Certain national borders would never have been crossed in the WWII political environment. But certain forces would have been allowed to board ships to sail to like-national bases, even though the game doesn't allow this. For example certain US Army units, even white Restricted, could easily have been sent to Hawaii once it was apparent Japan was not invading the WC. Certainly after Midway this was the case. But the game locks them down, even though they can walk to Canada.

Removing the Manchuria restrictions would be equal to allowing/moving the entire chinease army to go to India.

Right. And in a game with no HRs whatever the code allows is allowed. Except CR has evolved this game away from what he agreed to. He wanted a "Nemo game" but he continually wants negotiated restrictions which amount to ad hoc HRs as he sees the need. Were I PH I'd be getting pretty tired of these e-mails.

My bottom-line of the Restiricted issue is that situations like India/Burma or Manchuuria/China are cases where unified political entities make a decision to walk across a border in wartime which is not that relevant. But sending USMC infantry to fight near Calcutta, or US Army heavy formations to defend Oz from invasion in 1942 are in a RL la la land. The game allows it, but if one is looking for "balance" the latter is a far greater sin against history. As is frequently said, however, this is a game and not a sim, so let the Marines play. But then don't carp about Manchuria when the code allows it.

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.

Don't disagree why i call it above problematic. Im just saying obviously no HR didnt to CR mean no HR, but play reasonble.

CR was a lawyer for over twenty years. He knows how to word contracts. No HRs mean no HRs.

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.

I agree. He should have let that go too. I argued in his AAR that the only proviso was if CR spun the TFs around in the wormhole. That has the potential to break the code and the devs have said it was never contemplated it would be done.

If any thing is allowed, nothing can be a problem. Obvious neither of the 2 thinks that, they have limits on reasonble.

"Reasonable" is at the core of many lawsuits. When you use absolutes like "no" that should dispose of debates over what is "reasonable." Both players are guilty of backsliding.

quote:

That being said, Indian units aren't allowed in burma without 'buying' them? I admit my knowledge of the war in Burma/India theatre is virtually nil, so I dont know what happened historicaly. But it would make sense to me for Indian units to fight in Burma, why not fight the enemy in your neighbors yard instead of your own? In the early war i can see a rule restricting Indian units from crossing the border, but i can't see that restriction in mid/late war (say june 43 onward). I think the Indians would have been keen to exact revenge on the Japanese, and end the war as soon as possible. Also India/burma were still part of the English empire during the war, so I'm fairly sure the troops would go where they were told.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You're right. Having the USMC defending a part of the British Empire, in 1942 when the US was on its heels, and the US political culture was not exactly pro-colonialist, is pure science fiction. It would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

quote:


In contrast, the Manchurian forces were under unified political and miltary command. The issue in using Manchurian forces in China proper was a risk assessment vis a vis the USSR. It was not a quesiton of national sovereignty.

quote:


The associated issue, IN THE GAME, of whether using Manchurian forces in China allow China to be steamrolled is separate from what issue I'm addressing, which is what's allowed in terms of HRs when the players have mutually agreed there are no HRs? The USSR activation check and balance is always there; that handcuffs PH to an extent. Beyond that CR agreed to a no-HR game.

quote:


Right. And in a game with no HRs whatever the code allows is allowed. Except CR has evolved this game away from what he agreed to. He wanted a "Nemo game" but he continually wants negotiated restrictions which amount to ad hoc HRs as he sees the need. Were I PH I'd be getting pretty tired of these e-mails.

quote:


My bottom-line of the Restiricted issue is that situations like India/Burma or Manchuuria/China are cases where unified political entities make a decision to walk across a border in wartime which is not that relevant. But sending USMC infantry to fight near Calcutta, or US Army heavy formations to defend Oz from invasion in 1942 are in a RL la la land. The game allows it, but if one is looking for "balance" the latter is a far greater sin against history. As is frequently said, however, this is a game and not a sim, so let the Marines play. But then don't carp about Manchuria when the code allows it.

quote:


CR was a lawyer for over twenty years. He knows how to word contracts. No HRs mean no HRs.

"Reasonable" is at the core of many lawsuits. When you use absolutes like "no" that should dispose of debates over what is "reasonable." Both players are guilty of backsliding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You're right. Having the USMC defending a part of the British Empire, in 1942 when the US was on its heels, and the US political culture was not exactly pro-colonialist, is pure science fiction. It would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

Just like a 15 divisions jap invasion of CONUS would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

No it wouldn't, but less for political reasons than logistic. The USMC wouldn't be in India because of US political realities. But if the Japanese player wanted to send 15 divisions to CONUS (I've never seen this once, but I've seen the UISMC in India many times) he could if he paid PPs to get them on the ships. My issue is less the USMC being in India than CR doing that and then objecting to Japanese forces walking next door when Manchuria and China are the same country from the Japanese war-time POV.

Or a japanease 15 divisional invasion of Karachi would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

Same arguments. Japan would have had no military or political compunctions about doing this if they has been able. Different case with the Corps in Calcutta.

Yet the japanease players are allowed to go any where they like do any thing they like. One side is held to a higher standart than the other. Justifying by using of historical realities to fit ur arguement. While not allowing same to happen to the other side.

Japan happens to have large numbers of forces on the Asian landmass, so they can walk more places thean Americans can, yes. An accident of geography.

quote:


In contrast, the Manchurian forces were under unified political and miltary command. The issue in using Manchurian forces in China proper was a risk assessment vis a vis the USSR. It was not a quesiton of national sovereignty.

A risk isnt a risk if players are 100% aware of garrison limit and how close they are to comming under.

But that historical risk, without 100% certainty, is the source of the original devs putting in the Man. garrison rule at all. There's no other place on the map with such a thing. And it removes a lot of Japanese leeway. Even if he can pay PPs to get those LCUs he can't move all of them. The Allies don't face that restriction anywhere, HR or no HR.

quote:


The associated issue, IN THE GAME, of whether using Manchurian forces in China allow China to be steamrolled is separate from what issue I'm addressing, which is what's allowed in terms of HRs when the players have mutually agreed there are no HRs? The USSR activation check and balance is always there; that handcuffs PH to an extent. Beyond that CR agreed to a no-HR game.

Apparently both players HAVE been paying PPs to buy out units. So they seem to disagree with u.

They're making things up as they go along. Neither of us have perfect knowledge of what they've done PP-wise. My point continues to be that regardless of play to date a no-HR rule does not require paying PPs if the LCU can walk there. Forum and community convention may require it, but the code does not. And a no-HR game means "play to the code." A player can offer to pay PPs, or can pay PPs without being asked, but it's optional. If he does not his opponent has no right to demand it in a no-HR game.

Bullwinkle58. I try to point out this behavior so u possibly could think about whether this is in fact right or not. Do u have a bias that tilts ur arguments one side or the other?
It not just a question to me, about being right or wrong. If not im just an idiot and well i wont be the first nor the last u will meet. Peace.

The OOBs and map realities for each side give and take advantages from each side in different ways. I happen to believe most PBEM games are hampered by too many HRs. I have great respect for players who agree to no-HR games as they must remain alert to things which HRs relieve them of worrying about. If a pair want HRs, fine. But I don't think you can be a little pregnant on this. No means no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schlemiel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

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

But the whole "full price" thing is so rarely defined. When I say 150pp for those divisions, that is "full price" to swap them to any command in the game, and switching for full price instead of 1/4 to switch to, say, an unrestricted air hq within the same command structure, is the usual spirit of the rules. Japanese players frequently buy out a mauled bde in China to ship to an island somewhere (at a steep discount because it is mauled). Is stopping reinforcements to the 2nd marine rgt at the start of the game so that it is cheaper when you buy it out gamey or not (the other two regiments in the division are unrestricted as they arrive)? Is buying something out with disabled squads (which provide a discount) against the spirit of the rule? Waiting for units to be at full strength before they can be bought out provides its own set of issues as well. What if the pools are dry and it can't be filled out? What if you've specifically emptied the pools to other units so that situation happens?

That's why the rule is so murky and why pushing things to the limits of what might be reasonable (either in terms of mechanics or semantics) tends to happen.

quote:


I like the approach CR and PJH have taken toward house rules in this game, trying to do things they believe are reasonable in context and talking it out when a disagreement arises. Of course you need the right parties for that to happen, but it's the most reasonable approach when possible to my mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

No it wouldn't, but less for political reasons than logistic. The USMC wouldn't be in India because of US political realities. But if the Japanese player wanted to send 15 divisions to CONUS (I've never seen this once, but I've seen the UISMC in India many times) he could if he paid PPs to get them on the ships. My issue is less the USMC being in India than CR doing that and then objecting to Japanese forces walking next door when Manchuria and China are the same country from the Japanese war-time POV.

quote:


Japan happens to have large numbers of forces on the Asian landmass, so they can walk more places thean Americans can, yes. An accident of geography.

quote:


But that historical risk, without 100% certainty, is the source of the original devs putting in the Man. garrison rule at all. There's no other place on the map with such a thing. And it removes a lot of Japanese leeway. Even if he can pay PPs to get those LCUs he can't move all of them. The Allies don't face that restriction anywhere, HR or no HR.

quote:


They're making things up as they go along. Neither of us have perfect knowledge of what they've done PP-wise. My point continues to be that regardless of play to date a no-HR rule does not require paying PPs if the LCU can walk there. Forum and community convention may require it, but the code does not. And a no-HR game means "play to the code." A player can offer to pay PPs, or can pay PPs without being asked, but it's optional. If he does not his opponent has no right to demand it in a no-HR game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Bullwinkle58. I try to point out this behavior so u possibly could think about whether this is in fact right or not. Do u have a bias that tilts ur arguments one side or the other?
It not just a question to me, about being right or wrong. If not im just an idiot and well i wont be the first nor the last u will meet. Peace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

The OOBs and map realities for each side give and take advantages from each side in different ways. I happen to believe most PBEM games are hampered by too many HRs. I have great respect for players who agree to no-HR games as they must remain alert to things which HRs relieve them of worrying about. If a pair want HRs, fine. But I don't think you can be a little pregnant on this. No means no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Theguy on the grassy knoll has it about right,

Bullwinkle seems to be make a big thing about it being the Marines.

They had a unique position in US defense planning. They were not seen as continental battle troops by any stretch of the imagination.

CR could have as easily sent the USMC to OZ and 27 Infantry Div to SEAC. (I would buy out a rump Armored Division or 2 and ship it to India while its cheap.)

If he paid PPs to change the HQ I might be OK with that. I'm sure he didn't. Remember, this is not just about sending the MArines hither and yon. It's about doing th at and then complaining that an opponent might be walking Japanese troops in ocupied land to other Japanese territory in occupied land. And in a no-HR game.

(I think IRL there were at least 1 US Army Div and 1st USNC Div in OZ around this time, certainly by May 42.

The Marines weren't there to garrison Oz. They were passing through to the Solomons.

Somehow the US convinced itself to sent Merrill & MARS to India.

Minor.

The continual harping over "saving" a British interest is in odds with McArthurs determination to return to The Phillipines, within the US shere of influence.

Apples and pranges. The PI was a protectorate, and in some ways half there to being a state. And Mac was not in the civilian chain of command. He did think the universe revolved around himself, but the president didn't agree.

Wasteful operations happened in the Aleutians, because they were US Soil.

Not relevant to the point.

The time the British spent in India was more than 200 years longer than the US spent in its conquered or purchased territories.

Ditto.

The problems pointed out in posts above were, like Greyjoy & rader in Hokkaido, probably not thought of by the designers and sadly not moddable.
If CR & PJH can live with it, great.

Again, not the point in a no-HR game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

So ur saying there was no difference between the japanease IJN and IJA and it didnt forster how the RL campaign played out.The fact that russia was next door didnt play a role on the japanease perception of the need to have a force in Manchuria. At leased it seems of less concern than moving USMC or any units to India, to counter an invasion that never happened so we dont know what the allied reaction too would be.

The concern over the USSR is hard-coded regardless of the game situation. I see this as hamstringing the Japanese player in a way the Allied is never hamstrung, despite there being iron-bound historical realities which would have prevented certain cross-national force allocations at certain times in the war. I've said this several times now, so I should just let my position lie where it is.

Not that it really matters as now its a concern of CR asking, not objection too, PJH if they played by same understand of paying PPs.

I have also said that, beside the point that they seem OK with constantly questioning each other over "reasonableness", my point is they said they were playing a no-HR game and that has only one pure definition. Play with HRs, fine. Play without HRs, fine. Say you're playing without and then make up ad hoc HRs, recipe for problems. If they can get through this, fine. Most players could not and the game would end early with hurt feelings. Again, I've said my piece.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Bullwinkle things he is here to win the arguement, lets give him the gold medal and move on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The Marines weren't there to garrison Oz. They were passing through to the Solomons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Well while we are dicussing the finer mechanics of home rules .... PH is coming forth with one of the best plans I have noted in a long while for achieving instant victory. As per the PH thread .. a 24k/6k points ratio on Jan 1, 1943 is not only doable .. but is well underway ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Reading CR's latest post, is something leaking from here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Leaves a big cap between Hawaii & New Zealand that neither are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

CR defending South Eastern OZ and PJH scutlling around Northern Australia with his Sardine can Regiments.

Leaves a big cap between Hawaii & New Zealand that neither are talking about.