Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent--Closed

Post here to meet players for PBEM games and generally engage in ribbing and banter about your prowess.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent--Closed

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

After much thought I have decided to throw my antlers into the ring. Seeking a Japanese opponent for a PBEM grand campaign. Much open to negotiation, other things not so much. I can't promise an epic game, but I think I can promise one which is different than most. To wit:

Top-Line Stuff

1. GC, any scenario. I have played AI games of Scenario 1, 2, and DaBabesLite A.
2. Would play expanded map, but prefer not to play with stacking limits as I have not done that yet and in a first PBEM game there are many other things to watch.
3. Either 1- or 2-day turns.
4. Prefer to play with michaelm's just released beta patch. It addresses some serious bugs and adds important new rules for aviation support.
5. All set-up variables negotiable except auto-sub ops need to be OFF and Dud Torpedoes need to be ON.
6. I prefer to play without hexes showing, but will agree if this is a deal-breaker.

Philisopical Stuff

Here is where I hope I gain interest and expect to lose it as well. I am looking for a non-standard PBEM game as this has come to be defined in the general AE forum culture.

1. No house rules. Play the code as written. If it is an absolute deal-breaker I will play with PPs paid for cross-border movement, but I have little desire to play with an external set of restraints which must of necessity intrude on each turn's planning and execution. I know that it has grown to be accepted that a game without HRs must devolve into "gamey chaos", but I do not believe that must be the case. First, I have only played the AI, and it by definition plays to code, so I have not witnessed many of the actions some consider "gamey." Second, I believe a fundamantal historical base is designed into the game by the developers, and arbitrarily changing that balance can easily turn over the boat. Additionally, I am convinced that HRs which might make sense in the early game are ridiculous in the late. I intend to play an entire CG, or die trying.[8|] Third, many "gamey" practices such as single-ship ammo sponges are fiddly. I don't do fiddly. Fourth, I believe in the Golden Rule, and I believe in games and sports in its corollary: "Do Unto Me, and I Shall Do Unto You Worse."

Simple, right? I am a fair person, a Libra in fact, so it's built in.[:)] I don't think that many/any of the practices proscribed by common HRs matter in the long run of the game, but rather do in fact contribute to the tedium of some turns which can increase the chance of one player deciding to leave. I would prefer a crisp, forward progressing experience controlled by the value and exellence included by the designers. The dang thing is hard enough without having to shuffle through a stapled stack of well-thumbed house rules to see if you can fly THIS plane at THAT altitude.

2. Play it as a game, not a sim. Congruent with the idea that the game was well designed and executed by both of its parent teams is the reality that VPs and auto-victory underlie the thing. They are its foundation. Yet so many times we have seen otherwise well-played games and AARs peter out and die in mid-war because the opponents either explicity or implicity rejected this and "played for the experience." Or say "I know when I've won or lost." Rejecting VPs and auto-vic is anyone's right of course, but I prefer to see it as an entire level of the experience, as important to the planning and risk calculations as the actual switchology in each turn. Auto-vic ought to be the wolf snapping at your heels every day; VP points the coin of the realm. "How am I doing here in October 1942?" the player asks. The answer is designed in.

The manual describes how victory is calculated. The Allied player CANNOT win except by auto-victory, so those who play the Allies and say they're not playing for that are saying they know they have lost the game before they start. Auto-victory should be the Allied player's whip. He must achieve it, and his time is limited. Conversely, the Japanese player can win by merely surviving. By preserving a core and with deft maneuvering, trade-offs, and husbanding resources, he can win the game without aggressive action. The two impulses were carefuly balanced and I hope to find an opponent who agrees, and who sees the reward of playing to the end, sucking all of the value put into the experience by the development teams. The first year is interesting, but so is the last, albiet different. A Japanese player who persists, despite inevitably being battered, will learn things and see things his tremulous 1943-quitting brother will not.

Thus, I am seeking an opponent who wants to play the game as designed as it applies to auto-vic as well.

HOWEVER

Allied HQ--Frostbite Falls has recently been in contact with an Antipodean guru, he of encyclopedic knowledge to all things AE. This agent, codenamed "RockyRoo", has proposed the following, highly interesting sweetener to the above perhaps hard medicine:

If auto-vic occurs in 1943, 1944, or before August 1945 the victor shall take his victory lap, pour champagne on his head, rub blue mud on his belly--whatever the local custom dictates. He may then AT HIS OPTION choose to continue the game until the end of the war in 1946. If he chooses the game can end with his victory. However, if he chooses to continue, when the final victory level is calculated he shall have added either one (1) or two (2) (negotiable) levels to his final victory condition.

For example, to quote RockyRoo, "Say Japan achieves an auto victory on 1 January 1943, but the game is continued until time expires as outlined in s.17.1. of the manual. In that instance the manual says the final victory level is shifted 2 levels towards Japan, resulting in an adjusted "draw". My suggestion is that because Japan had achieved an earlier auto victory, the final adjusted victory level would be shifted a further one (or two) level in favour of Japan so that it actually amounts to an adjusted Japanese Marginal victory (or Japanese decisive if you adopt a 2 level shift)."

I do not recall if the game code continues to monitor for auto-victory after the first one is achieved. Thus if, say, the Japanese achieve one in January 1943 and the game then progresses, the players would monitor for a second auto-vic ratio as described in the manual. Very often the first would be a Japanese victory, and the second an Allied, but the proposed rule here would reduce the Allied player's achievement due to the earlier 1943 loss. If the second ratio were not achieved and the game continued to game engine shutdown in 1946 the final vicotry calculation would be adjusted based on the first auto-victory.

The effect of this practice would be to accept auto-vic for what it is: a decisive defeat for one player. But playing on dimensionalizes the victory in both its facets, and I believe, for those who favor an historical view of the game, also demonstrates how near run a thing 1942 was for the Allies. Change a few occurances and the end would have been quite different.

I believe this proposal meets many of the objections to auto-victory. First, it encourages it because the game need not end if it happens, and thus all that 1942 effort is not wasted. Second, it gives the option to quit to the winner, who may take it if he has been in a game with someone who is overmatched and should practice further, but does it in a manner where no one has to quit suddenly and slink away. And finally, it allows the chance for both players to see the entire span of the game product as well as for an earlier auto-vic loser to come back and even the score somewhat. It balances.

Summary

So, if you are at least moderately experienced in playing the Japanese and could enjoy a game built on the frameworks above, I'd like to hear from you. If you have only played the AI before, I'd like to hear from you. If you fear you're not very good, I'd like to hear from you. If you would like to write an AAR wherein you seek help and advice from one or several Fearless Leader(s) known to be experts in Japanese management, I want to hear from you. Despite having played AE from the first week it shipped I know I can be beaten, possibly by 1943, but I also know I'll try to make you earn it. And that, failing death, sickness, revolution, or major meteor strike I won't quit the game early. I've played it to the end, and the end is a blast.

If anyone is still reading this and is intrigued by the style of game I propose . . .



Image
Attachments
ea34dd13_U..t20You_1.jpg
ea34dd13_U..t20You_1.jpg (23.27 KiB) Viewed 162 times
The Moose
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Chickenboy »

Best wishes for your game, Moose. I'm sure you'll have a blast. Will you be writing up an AAR?
Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Best wishes for your game, Moose. I'm sure you'll have a blast. Will you be writing up an AAR?

Thanks.

Not sure on an AAR. A lot of time and I have a lot to learn in the game. I might be sharing decision points with RockyRoo on occasion.
The Moose
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by PaxMondo »

Good luck!  I hope you do manage an AAR, even if it is only summary updates.  Hoping I manage to get to a PBEM in a few year myself ...
Pax
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Dan Nichols »

Very intriguing offer.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by DOCUP »

Good Luck Bullwinkle.  I am starting a petition, You Must Have an AAR.  If atleast updates.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Good Luck Bullwinkle.  I am starting a petition, You Must Have an AAR.  If atleast updates.

I need an opponent first. [:)]

It's Sunday, so USAians are watching the NFL and burping, but what about the rest of the world? Don't make me feel like the fat kid with his mitt on his head, standing out in right field when his team is up at bat.

I repeat: OP maybe Big and Scary, but it's just an attempt to be clear. Verbose too. But I'll happily play a newbie to PBEM if you take the game seriously and try to beat me like a bad habit. Trust me, it can be done. The list of bad AI-play techniques I have accumulated is long and covered in moss.

The Moose
buutsy
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Berlin

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by buutsy »

PM sent [:)]
User avatar
adsoul64
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:16 pm
Location: Milan Italy

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by adsoul64 »

It's Sunday, so USAians are watching the NFL and burping, but what about the rest of the world?

Europeans are watching soccer / F1 / Cycling and burping. Those sundays will kill us [:(]
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by DOCUP »

We need to get Bullwinkle a mean looking moose for his avatar now that he is crossing over to the PBEM side. Something like Des's Emu. Maybe Bullwinkle with a tommy gun.
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Dan Nichols »

Here we are


Image
Attachments
moosewithgun.jpg
moosewithgun.jpg (6.23 KiB) Viewed 162 times
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

We need to get Bullwinkle a mean looking moose for his avatar now that he is crossing over to the PBEM side. Something like Des's Emu. Maybe Bullwinkle with a tommy gun.

My avatar serves several functions. It's friendly, so you come on in. It looks stupid, so, ummm, well . . .

OK, it provides me a cover story for when I get creamed. Look like a moose, act like a moose.

Maybe I should go with Dudley Do-Right for a PBEM? He already has a uniform and I have an uncle who served in the RCMP. [:)]
The Moose
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Dan Nichols »

So Bull, has anyone stepped up yet?

If not, then I will offer you a scenario 1, historical first turn, no house rules game.
I have not played a PBEM as Japan, but I have played 2 games deeply against the AI( both
about mid 1944 ).

I do play with hexes on, but I am quite sure that can be set different by the players.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

So Bull, has anyone stepped up yet?

If not, then I will offer you a scenario 1, historical first turn, no house rules game.
I have not played a PBEM as Japan, but I have played 2 games deeply against the AI( both
about mid 1944 ).

I do play with hexes on, but I am quite sure that can be set different by the players.

I got two replies this afternnon, and am negotiating with the first chap now. If it goes I will close this thread. If not I'll let everyone know.

On the hexes issue, I tried in a local PBEM workbench game to find a way for the Allies to alter this but was unable. They can turn hex side detail on and off, but not the hexes themselves. That toggle is dead to the Allied player and I could find no hotkey. I think playing with hexes on is nearly universal (I found only one other player who requested them off in over ten pages of this sub-forum), so it doesn't come up much. I suspect this was an oversight in the original dev effort.
The Moose
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Dan Nichols »

I turned them off in my PBEM game. I started the game, set my preference to no hexes, closed the game out and then restarted and then loaded the turn and the hexes were off. I think they would stay that way.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

So Bull, has anyone stepped up yet?

If not, then I will offer you a scenario 1, historical first turn, no house rules game.
I have not played a PBEM as Japan, but I have played 2 games deeply against the AI( both
about mid 1944 ).

I do play with hexes on, but I am quite sure that can be set different by the players.

I got two replies this afternnon, and am negotiating with the first chap now. If it goes I will close this thread. If not I'll let everyone know.

On the hexes issue, I tried in a local PBEM workbench game to find a way for the Allies to alter this but was unable. They can turn hex side detail on and off, but not the hexes themselves. That toggle is dead to the Allied player and I could find no hotkey. I think playing with hexes on is nearly universal (I found only one other player who requested them off in over ten pages of this sub-forum), so it doesn't come up much. I suspect this was an oversight in the original dev effort.
The secret is that having hexes turned on only accesses the other set of map graphics files. You see, there are two sets, identical in all respects except that one has hex boundaries and one does not. Look in the graphics folder and you will soon spot the two sets of map panels. An enterprising ungulate could just move out the "hex on" ones to a safe place in case he wanted them later, then make a second copy of the "hex off" ones, then renaming them to impersonate the (now missing) "hex on" ones. [:)]
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

So Bull, has anyone stepped up yet?

If not, then I will offer you a scenario 1, historical first turn, no house rules game.
I have not played a PBEM as Japan, but I have played 2 games deeply against the AI( both
about mid 1944 ).

I do play with hexes on, but I am quite sure that can be set different by the players.

I got two replies this afternnon, and am negotiating with the first chap now. If it goes I will close this thread. If not I'll let everyone know.

On the hexes issue, I tried in a local PBEM workbench game to find a way for the Allies to alter this but was unable. They can turn hex side detail on and off, but not the hexes themselves. That toggle is dead to the Allied player and I could find no hotkey. I think playing with hexes on is nearly universal (I found only one other player who requested them off in over ten pages of this sub-forum), so it doesn't come up much. I suspect this was an oversight in the original dev effort.
The secret is that having hexes turned on only accesses the other set of map graphics files. You see, there are two sets, identical in all respects except that one has hex boundaries and one does not. Look in the graphics folder and you will soon spot the two sets of map panels. An enterprising ungulate could just move out the "hex on" ones to a safe place in case he wanted them later, then make a second copy of the "hex off" ones, then renaming them to impersonate the (now missing) "hex on" ones. [:)]

I didn't think to look in the folder. I will try that. Thanks.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

I turned them off in my PBEM game. I started the game, set my preference to no hexes, closed the game out and then restarted and then loaded the turn and the hexes were off. I think they would stay that way.

In my tests the Japanese player could turn them on and off each turn and the changes stuck. But I couldn't get them to change playing the Allies.

There may be a clever solution her ein the thread though. I have to dig into the folders.
The Moose
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by Dan Nichols »

I am an Allied player and I can turn them off and on as I stated above. You do not need to change file names or anything like that, but that would also work.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: Moose Seeks Boris (or Natasha) As Japanese Opponent

Post by erstad »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

We need to get Bullwinkle a mean looking moose for his avatar now that he is crossing over to the PBEM side. Something like Des's Emu. Maybe Bullwinkle with a tommy gun.

Maybe this?


Image
Attachments
91962.jpg
91962.jpg (34.45 KiB) Viewed 162 times
Post Reply

Return to “Opponents Wanted”