Matrix Games Forums

Players compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta EstDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied opponent needed [closed]

 
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 >> Opponents Wanted >> Allied opponent needed [closed] Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied opponent needed [closed] - 10/8/2012 7:16:14 AM   
Erkki

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Hello,


As I'm slowly getting to have more free time again, I've begun to think about starting another PBEM. I initially thought about playing the Allies this time but meh!

I am looking for someone who is willing to play as long as it takes. I'm more of a history/role player myself and pretty relaxed(IMHO) rather than someone who optimizes everything and uses every trick the game allows him to do. I would enjoy playing a game that would progress at least first 6 in game months pretty close to real war. I'm planning to write an AAR and it'd be great to have my opponent do his own to read 2(10) years from now.

I am a fairly noobie to moderate skilled(IMHO), pretty relaxed but also fairly systematic. Masochistic as all Japan players need to be. So I would prefer my opponent to not be hyper competetive, skilled or... well, "gamey", as that would probably lead to at least me losing the interest to the game sooner or later. I've played 2 PBEMs before, both as Japan, but they both ended by July 1942.

I should be able to average turn/day but I cannot guarantee more than 5/week. At times, mostly on weekends, I will be able to do up to 3 a day. I cannot ask any more from my opponent. 1-2 week breaks from the game are perfectly OK and I will probably need to ask for them myself too every now and then.

I am in Euro timezones(GMT+2) so if you are from the States you wont need to wait for the turns when we do turn/day, but weekends could be annoying if we have the time to do multiple turns a day and happen to be both awake.

I am also perfectly okay with multiple opponents(as long as it doesnt effect the turn rate too much, 4-5 week would be preferable).

I will probably ask for a number of smaller House Rules, but here'd be my preferences:


-Latest official patch(or a beta)(game version with hex stacking limits please)
-DBB equivalent of Scen 1 or 2
-Stock Scen 1 or Scen 2 if you insist

- Historical or unhistorical first turn(surprise on)
- Allied damage control on
- Sucky Allied torpedoes on
- PDU ON
- Realistic RND on (related, Japan player doesnt overdo R&D, at least not the late war überfighters)
- Reinforcements +-15 or more - can be fixed too but I'd like the variation
- No strat bombing in or from China before 1944 or second half of 1943 or beginning of 1943
- No 4E naval bombing with Army units(its not the bomb hits but the way 4Es kill and reduce the CAP so easily)
- CAP and Sweep altitude limited to best MVR band. Planes that have best band = lowest band get the extra 5kft. Escorted bombers dont fly higher than their escorts can. No unreachable bomber stratosweeps to reduce CAP and increase fatigue.
- Nothing flies in the night - debatable but this rule has kept me sane in the past
- More or less silent China?
- (If the game reaches this point, way or another) no non-Soviet Air or Ground units in Soviet territory. Naval task forces are Okay Comrade
- Submarines and other non-CV TFs need to have at least 2 patrol points - with single-hex patrols they dont consume any fuel if they dont get enemy contact... CVs at least burn fuel if their planes fly. This might have been fixed to later game versions(the last one I played was a 2 year old beta).

- I'm also willing to start new house rules or other agreements during the game as the rise needs - both rules that effect both players as rules that effect only either one, as or if the need for them rises. Enjoyment of the game should be in the priority of the game for both players.

- Feel free to suggest a rule or agreement of your own.


Please do contact me here or via forum PM. I'd probably be ready to start the game by weekend.


EDIT:

also

- Only Glens can operate from submarines
- Japanese CVEs: heavier CV planes like D4Y, B6N, Grace(forgot the designation ) cannot operate from CVEs - only D3A, Zeros and the 2 biplanes - they couldnt do that IRL either

EDIT2: some more things I'd like to have in the game, but can live without... with some quick aircraft data edits that I think would give the game a bit more flavor and make some choices that WitPAE players usually make less obvious or more debatable. I dont think the game is biased but there are errors and inaccuracies, and especially the air war has some annoying things(for both players) that I'd like fixed.


- D3A2: maybe give Japan some reason to build it?
- Ki-44 series: service rating of 2 because thats what they should have both realism/history and balance wise(and I'm an evil nip-jap!!), possibly give IIb armor(also to give reason to build that variant)
- Ki-61: maybe give Ic and Ib service rating of 2(historically or at least pseudo historically) already to have some reason to build them over Ki-44s, and to make some sense in building late war too?
- Ki-21-IIb: given armor: 1(which they should have) to give Japan player even one reason to keep Ki-21 factories after May 1942 or so(I'd keep them then...)

- Allied CVs: CV F4Us with service rating 2 to give the Allies at least 1 reason to prefer the F6F(like IRL due to F4Us issues with carrier landings, like higher stall speed and poor cockpit visibility at landing)
- P-47s: service rating 2 for advanced the turbo supercharger

I could rant about 4E gunners and the formation bonus but I dont think any Allied player would be okay with nerfing them in any way.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 10/13/2012 11:13:40 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/8/2012 7:38:56 AM   
Erkki

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
I do realize thats a lot of HRs and change suggestions but I hope you can see the reasoning.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 10/8/2012 7:39:22 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/8/2012 10:42:58 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 393
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
PM sent

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/8/2012 4:59:41 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 5718
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki


- Only Glens can operate from submarines
- Japanese CVEs: heavier CV planes like D4Y, B6N, Grace(forgot the designation ) cannot operate from CVEs - only D3A, Zeros and the 2 biplanes - they couldnt do that IRL either

EDIT2: some more things I'd like to have in the game, but can live without... with some quick aircraft data edits that I think would give the game a bit more flavor and make some choices that WitPAE players usually make less obvious or more debatable. I dont think the game is biased but there are errors and inaccuracies, and especially the air war has some annoying things(for both players) that I'd like fixed.


- D3A2: maybe give Japan some reason to build it?
- Ki-44 series: service rating of 2 because thats what they should have both realism/history and balance wise(and I'm an evil nip-jap!!), possibly give IIb armor(also to give reason to build that variant)
- Ki-61: maybe give Ic and Ib service rating of 2(historically or at least pseudo historically) already to have some reason to build them over Ki-44s, and to make some sense in building late war too?
- Ki-21-IIb: given armor: 1(which they should have) to give Japan player even one reason to keep Ki-21 factories after May 1942 or so(I'd keep them then...)

- Allied CVs: CV F4Us with service rating 2 to give the Allies at least 1 reason to prefer the F6F(like IRL due to F4Us issues with carrier landings, like higher stall speed and poor cockpit visibility at landing)
- P-47s: service rating 2 for advanced the turbo supercharger

I could rant about 4E gunners and the formation bonus but I dont think any Allied player would be okay with nerfing them in any way.


Very sound and interesting HRs if i may comment!

Considering you're editing the DBB scenario, i would also add a steady and heavy "touch" to the russian replacement rates for fighters prior 1944. If the ruskies get activated they need something to fight with... Can't understand why nobody ever thinks of this problem...

Love the idea of giving a reason to build the Tony series and to keep the Sally in production when the Helen becomes available

I'd also add a service rating of 2 for the first model of Jack...so that you get tempted to produce some of them to pair with the George

Good luck!

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/8/2012 10:38:21 PM   
Bill Durrant


Posts: 931
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Oxfordshire
Status: offline
Roger

One of your AARs if you play this one - please

_____________________________

Sunk by 35cm/45 1YT Gun - Near Singapore

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/9/2012 7:10:02 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 393
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline



Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Bill Durrant)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/9/2012 3:04:11 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3565
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

PM sent

Roger


Good, Now there is a chance Flashman's story will be told in full. Last we heard of him he had managed to get out of Singapore and was lolling about on some Dutch island. That diary of his just has to make it back for posterity's sake.

Alfred

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied opponent needed - 10/13/2012 11:14:13 PM   
Erkki

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Looks like I have an opponent. Closed!

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> Allied opponent needed [closed] Page: [1]
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

0.088