Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

What's the prevailing opinion on single ship TFs? I know some players object to it, but for what reason? Does the game not deal with them realistically? Is it because you think they didn't exist historically? I know of ways to abuse that ability, but sending AKLs on resupply missions, especially when there haven't been any enemy subs in the area, seems perfectly legit to me. I also don't think there's any safety in numbers, either gamewise or historically, unless one or more of those numbers have ASW ability. Needless to say, there aren't enough escorts early in the war anyway. My opponent objects to single (AKLs in this case) because his anti ship squadrons will not launch against them. That would seem to me to be a problem with the game, if so, and justification to prohibit them where possible anywhere within range of enemy planes. Small cargo ships carrying only supplies or fuel, it seems to me, ought to be able to operate that way. ASW patrols and minesweepers definitely should be able to, I think. Of course everyone does that with subs. DDs just transferring from one port to another should also be able to do that.

Anyways, I'd appreciate hearing all sides of that argument.

edit: I suppose it should be noted that search planes will attack single ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My opponent is neither incompetent, ignorant or trying to trick me. I am more than willing to accept your judgement on the issue at hand, because of my experience of you and your tendency to be a very dry, "only the facts, ma'am" sort. Let's say no more.

Single-ship TFs certainly do get targeted by aircraft, so your opponent is ignorant/misinformed/mistaken on that point.

My latest WiTP opponent believes this myth. Is this something that was in the ol' game that was changed with AE?

There is a long list of WITP myths still extant in the AE community. Look at any typical list of HRs.

+10!

Just because there are extant HRs regarding one-ship TFs in the game doesn't mean they're myth based,

In this thread the OP stated his opponent states that his anti-shipping air will not launch against them. This is a myth.

nor does it imply that those that use HRs such as this are ignorant, stupid, liars or whatever else has been suggested.

Project much?

This discussion (use of one-ship TFs) revolves around realistic use, not the mechanics of whether naval torpedo bombers / DBs, etc. will attack them equally.

Not the OP. As for "realistic" use that horse has been beat to death in endless JFB/AFB threads. As Alfred wears himself out saying, it's a game, not a sim.

Definitions of "realistic use" or "gamey use" will vary between players.

Correct. With some of us saying there is no such thing as "gamey" use. It's a null term in a game.

HRs are designed to head off miscommunications regarding these expectations. Nothing wrong with that in a game to avoid some extant problems with exploitation of this game mechanic by some.

Opinions differ, but I see a lot of games end early with one player in a huff over HRs and "gamey." If more would play the game as designed, with victory conditions as designed, a lot more games would finish without a quit. IMHO.

Bull,

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP? My observations of some of the language used by those in this thread regarding opponents 'ignorance' is not projecting if it's stated or implied. I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Yes, there are differences from your humble opinion. I see games (plenty of 'em) end because players play the game 'as designed', with victory conditions 'as designed' when a discussion apriori of game issues would have headed these issues off. They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

Alfred and you may think that the 'realistic' angle has been beaten to death in countless fanboi threads, but I don't. It's the principal of selecting an opponent and I couldn't possibly care less what Alfred says about the 'intended' nature of the game.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations. One of these expectations is how an opponent will handle some of these sticky issues-single ship TFs is one of them. Don't like it? Doesn't suit your style of play? I really don't care. This is still my standing advice to those considering a PBEM match.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Look at any typical list of HRs

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing!

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Thanks, CB
On the subject of HRs, one I've run into and went along with is no 4EHBs below 10k, and I may in the future for at least '42 even though I know such attacks did in fact happen. I would draw the line when they're be used as search planes, or if you have nothing better to use, ASW. In those cases I'll put them at whatever altitude I like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Did you really think that I must restrict my responses to merely those initial comments by the OP?

Of course not. As I don't have to. But your response indicated to me that you believe no HRs are base don myths. I pointed out one which is. I also reacted to your use of the word "liars."

My observations of some of the language used by those in this thread regarding opponents 'ignorance' is not projecting if it's stated or implied.

OK, let me say it another ay. It seemed defensive.

I was pointing out that some posters were unnecessarily brusque and accusatory in their response.

Opinions differ.

Yes, there are differences from your humble opinion. I see games (plenty of 'em) end because players play the game 'as designed', with victory conditions 'as designed' when a discussion apriori of game issues would have headed these issues off.

Some. A few. I read the Opponents Wanted thread each and every time a new ad appears. The vast majojrity of them begin with a statement that HR swill be be required. And a fai rnumber--I have no census--of AARs contain some variation of the statement "we're not playing for VPs." Since it is impossible for th eAllied player to win without considering VPs, as the only way he can win is by auto-victory, they aren't playing the game as designed.

They quit when the game-get this-isn't matching what they want for entertainment. It's a shame, really.

You're more charitalble than I am.

Alfred and you may think that the 'realistic' angle has been beaten to death in countless fanboi threads, but I don't. It's the principal of selecting an opponent and I couldn't possibly care less what Alfred says about the 'intended' nature of the game.

Take it up with him. It's a fact that the game is not realistic. A fact. Find some avgas for me if you think it is. It's a series of abstracted decisions to include or not. It's a balance of what was put in and what was left out. So choosing to HR-away or HR-include factors is just as abstract and no more realistic. Most often an HR is there to make the game easier to win for one side or the other. Which I wouldn't mind if the HRers would be honest about it. Instead they hide behind their view of history and ignore the library of history which isn't in there either.

Players accepting a PBEM match should enter into that arrangement with deliberate forethought and common viewpoints about expectations.

As a minimum, yes. Too many don't even do that much, let alone play the game as designed.

One of these expectations is how an opponent will handle some of these sticky issues-single ship TFs is one of them. Don't like it? Doesn't suit your style of play? I really don't care. This is still my standing advice to those considering a PBEM match.

And if it's all right with you I will continue to argue strenuously that playing without HRs makes for a better, smoother, and more honest game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



So, with regards to the broad spectrum of questions originally posed by the OP in this thread, I still see some 'issues' regarding singleton xAKLs as ammo or sortie sponges. No it's not just the air search / air attack on xAKL singletons aspect of the game. The OPs questions were more broad and they have NOT been entirely dealt with.

Thus the reasonable merit of HRs regarding singleton xAKLs. Mythical? Hardly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Wait - are you using mythologically mythical spelling? This is getting confusing!

The dimensions of this are mythic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I feel quite lucky in that when I advertised for a PBEM so long ago I ended up with a like minded player. I had advertised for an opponent who likes to play an historically plausible game. Chez and I started up a CHS game with a fairly substantial list of HRs, one of which involved the use of multiple single ship TFs in the defense of a port. Apparently he had an opponent who loved to do this and his attacks all failed because the game did not combine all the single ship TFs into one action but rather made his TFs run the guantlet of single ship TFs, one after another. In that CHS game we had one time that one of our hrs was violated - by me. I had set the hex just outside Exmouth as an invasion rendezvous and my troops were landed there violating the "invasions only in base hexes" rule. I had forgotten to set my Tfs to "do not unload"...

In our AE game we have no HRs. Is this because we want an "anything goes" game? No, it is because we are comfortable with each other's style and know that we can discuss any issues that occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Like many lawyers, you

I'm not a lawyer.

must find it baffling when, IRL, things are not spelled out in the four corners of a document.

Baffling? No. But it's easier. Many folks who run into the law in the normal course of life--probate, divorce, real estate--find out very quickly how fast things can go south when "everybody knows" turns out not to be the case.

Perhaps the issue of 'motive' may be closest to my POV on this. There are no absolutes, as you've come to realize. There are instances where one thing, done under the auspices of one motive are legally legitimized and other instances in which they are criminal.

Contracts are civil law. Criminal law does have as a foundation the requirement for intent. But I'm talking about contracts where the sine qua non is offer and acceptance. In order to have that one must be able to understand the offer. Thus, definitions. "No single-ship TFs" is brutal, crude, over-reaching--but it's clear. "Any single-ship TF" is the same. "Only some single-ship TFs and I'll know the bad ones when I see them and ask you about intent and then judge your intent and argue it's the wrong intent" is over-reaching in a different sense. It subjectifies the contract. And that's always dangerous to comity.

Your examples presuppose no intent, merely reliance upon an iron-clad contract. I'm not proposing this approach as it's too rigid. Motive is an important differentiator.

So what I think I'm hearing is it's not 1-ships, 2-ships, 3-ships, more . . . but ships not there to perform a cpmbat mission but which soak up ammo you wish had gone to the mission-performers? I've never seen an HR say that. I've seen "No 1-ship TFs."

What happens with your no HRs game when the unarguable need for HRs arises?

There will NEVER be such a case. Never. Why? Mike and I have a contract. We agreed to play to the code. The one thing I said I would not do was in the case of spinning TFs in the wormholes. This the code allows, but it's an error state, not a design feature, and it can break the game. Other than that we have a no-whine zone. He can do anything he wants. So can I. It's working fine. Not one thing he's done I object to. I don't expect there will be. But even if there is I'll shut up and soldier because that's what I contracted to do.

And because every single thing that can be done in the game has a counter move. This is the part the HRers never conceed. They prefer to ask for breaks rather than apply logic and skill to find a way to turn the tables.

Could your approach (No HRs-period) serve you when, early in the game there were some pre-patch aspects of gameplay ('nuclear artillery', 'Uber-PTs', etc.) that clearly upset the game?

They made gameplay different. They didn't break it. Each of those has a counter, or an opportunity cost which was never discussed as people were wailing about "historical." The patches came, they were equal for everyone, I play with them. As I said, I play to the code. So does Mike.

The game is asymetirical to its core. It's not chess. It's not baseball. The two sides are not equal. HRs inevitably try to make the two sides be more equal when the historical truth--the biggest one of all--is they never were. The Allies were a 20-lb sledge and Japan was a carpet tack. But if players play the code and play the design Japan can win every time if the player is skillful. And without HRs.

I know you weren't involved in PBEMs then (ergo no need for HRs), but those that WERE involved in PBEMs found the flexibility of their partners on these matters to be most important for continuitous play. I know I did.

I'll let Mike weigh in on his thoughts about the nuclear artillery thing if he wants.

Likewise, as the game system has stabilized, I've become more comfortable playing with fewer HRs. Most of the real continuity game killers have been taken care of. There are a few outstanding issues that merit discussion with an opponent before involvement in a game. Still more that argue for a 'meeting of the minds' about gameplay style in general. Iron clad? Nope. Important to agree upon before starting a 'relationship'? You bet.

So what happened to your relationship with your PBEM game with the recently posted post-mortem AAR?

Please understand my position. I think HRs are unnecessary. But if they are to be used they need to be clearly written. Many are not. And I think "emerging" HRs in the middle of a game are the worst of the lot. Be a man and play the game you took on.

"Pickets" are an example that comes closest to your final question. The common ground that I've found with my opponent requires that pickets be a 'military' craft-mimicking a small intelligence trawler.

What is a picket? That's the first question. Militarily pickets, on land and sea, have a variety of uses and designs. These uses have evolved, sometimes very quickly, as technology has changed. You can't make a rule about something unless you know what it is. When you say "pickets" to me I'm virtually certain we have different things in mind. I could take a stab at a definition, but a big problem is you, as the opponent, might very well have imperfect visibility on what the vessel is doing, and thus see something I didn't do or intend. So you open a discussion. "Hey! That ship at x,y violates HR #27 on pickets!" The only way I can discuss this with you is to give you full info on what that vessel is doing. And I don't want to do that. I'm trying to beat you.


Any PB, AMc, PC, PG or other small military vessel will do. Obviously, DDs or other small combatants are fine for that role too. Not OK: xAKL, xAK, xAP and other non-military ships intentionally deployed as early warning.

Why not a CL? Why not a CA? If I'm trying to buy off air attacks on my carriers I might risk a CA. Would a CA never be a "picket" despite doing that function? In my experience "picket" describes a function, not a platform type. If it's a DD, what does it have to be doing to become a picket and not a hunter? Intent again? Why does it matter? It's a DD. Everybody can see in the OOB what its capability is. Why does it need an HR but a CL doing the same route at the same speed doesnt?

Does that really make a difference? Aren't xAK ship types generally worth more VPs than AMc and PB vessels? Well, yes. But you can make a very different argument about the realism (yes, I'm using that word) of such a decision. Motive: military vessels should be used for military means. Civilian vessels should not be intentionally used as front line combatants.

A picket is only partly a combatant, and sometimes not one at all. It's an intel gatherer. Coastwatchers are pickets. But OK, no "civilian" ships (ignore that in WWII the definitions were gray.) Why stop at certain combatant classes? It's purely subjective. And limiting the classes to small fry which are toast versus planes is an HR which favors the Japanese.

Motive doesn't make any difference to you? OK. You play your game however you wish.

I am. And I encourage others, especially newbies, to do the same. It's liberating.

My way-communication with opponents, meeting of the minds, discussion and agreement on novel developments, working together towards a common shared experience-isn't for everyone, that's for sure.

Mike and I talk by e-mail every day, sometimes a little, sometimes more. We're getting to know each other. He's a great guy, a lot of interests. We're very close in age and lifestyle. He's giving me a great game and I hope he feels the same. But we don't spend our time discussing pickets. There's no need. His ships speak Japanese, and I don't know that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Chickenboy, Moose, IMHO you both have very valid points.

The detail is just a matter of taste.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

There's a historical use of one-ship TFs that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread. I speak of evacuating Manila (as the biggest example) in the first couple days of the war, sending all the transports out one at a time.

Myth or not -- and the status could have changed, I don't know -- the belief was that the air groups would attack only one TF apiece, even if there were 20 in the same hex. By creating more TFs, this assured the preservation of more ships for a longer time. They might still get eradicated, but it would take many more turns to accomplish this.

Anyway, that's just background to answer the original question. More and more I find myself agreeing with Bullwinkle; I'd rather play the game as designed and updated (including betas) and not deal with a list of HRs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
So, you go totally objective and ban ALL single-ship TFs. "There shall be no 'ammo sponges'" the players declare. Single-ship TFs--ugg, bad. Both players are hamstrung in their efficient use of their assets. Me, the Allies, can't supply the Yukon or Alaska right away because I don't have enough escorts to go around, and sending two transports to many of those ports overwhelms the docking. Maybe I don't want two transports of supply there, sinice it will spoil. Maybe I don't want to risk two ships to subs when one would do just fine. I resent an iron-bound contract which forces me to fight stupid in order to head off possible "ammo sponges" 5000 miles away and two years in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I feel quite lucky in that when I advertised for a PBEM so long ago I ended up with a like minded player. I had advertised for an opponent who likes to play an historically plausible game. Chez and I started up a CHS game with a fairly substantial list of HRs, one of which involved the use of multiple single ship TFs in the defense of a port. Apparently he had an opponent who loved to do this and his attacks all failed because the game did not combine all the single ship TFs into one action but rather made his TFs run the guantlet of single ship TFs, one after another. In that CHS game we had one time that one of our hrs was violated - by me. I had set the hex just outside Exmouth as an invasion rendezvous and my troops were landed there violating the "invasions only in base hexes" rule. I had forgotten to set my Tfs to "do not unload"...

In our AE game we have no HRs. Is this because we want an "anything goes" game? No, it is because we are comfortable with each other's style and know that we can discuss any issues that occur.

Sweet.

Of course, it took you how many years to get that one partner?