Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: GD1938 Game 24

 
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] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: GD1938 Game 24 Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/11/2017 2:02:18 PM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
So to be clear "Ambush" this is a fleet that was surrounded by a very large number of Chinese Submarine III's how did this Ambush come about, and no survivors in every instance of the use of this exploit/Ambush, that's no survivors in every conceivable application of this "Ambush" a very effective Ambush indeed.

At the very least this "Ambush" tactic should be agreed upon before a game is commenced no such agreement has been given in any game of GD1938 that I have participated in, so I go back to my original position that this was a exploit as no agreement had been reached.

As has been stated most of the veteran players are aware of what happens when allies/neutrals find themselves in the same hex when they become belligerents, it has never been called Ambush, and never to my knowledge been used in a game of GD1938 or for that matter any incarnation of Advanced Tactic's Gold that I have taken part it may have been the subject of a post but not one I have ever seen. And does not explain why you felt it would be acceptable to use "Ambush" in a game of GD1938 when no agreement was in place and that it would cause at the very least a debate that would not reflect well on Advanced Tactics Gold.

And of course if all that you have said is correct and you take note of my comments the turn should be played again and if this tactic is to used again then agreement should be reached by all participating players for myself I will never agree the tactic is gamey and does not feel real world no survivors and existing screens and pickets that suddenly go blind, really.

(in reply to cpdeyoung)
Post #: 211
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/12/2017 12:31:07 AM   
cpdeyoung


Posts: 4552
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Carolina, USA
Status: offline
Tom wrote :
quote:

cpdeyoung used what the designer of the game Vic called a exploit


This is false. I do not think Vic said anything of the sort. If you have any evidence he said this please quote him as I did.

"Ambush" is his word as seen in the quote. This is how he expected the ambush to be used. The words inside the Quote fields were Vic's, not mine.

We do not need special agreement to play by Vic's rules. We "agree" to that when we start his game.

quote:

no survivors in every conceivable application of this "Ambush" a very effective Ambush indeed.


There were no German survivors either. If there had been German survivors in enough quantity I would have sunk some of the Japanese in the hex too. Too bad your "screens" were that effective anyway.

I thought the attack was very "effective" and the results very satisfactory.

Chuck

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 212
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/12/2017 6:32:49 AM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

The advent of the rule that made it possible for neutral nations to move forces into other neutral forces sea hexes, is my doing. I played a game once, when the rule did not exist, and made a screen of subs, that prevented the other player from attacking my coastline. Vic considered this an exploit. I still think it was good gaming :) If not a bit unrealistic though.
QUOTE from earnieschwitz

Vic considered earnieschwitz play a exploit I strongly disagree (If a major power wished to restrict the movement of another major power then placing warships or subs in there path in a effort to control bodies of ocean should be acceptable, it is also highly provocative and could provoke a war) as I understand it if the Soviets and Germans are allies the Germans can move there army onto the Soviet army then declare war and obliterate them without a fight, the use of such rule has to be agreed it has not been so replay the turn or concede defeat.

And the reason your subs did not survive is because Larry's fleet finished them off by using combat you remember combat don't you, its a valid means of resolving combat in a wargame, something you seem to have lost sight off this is a wargame not a sleazy lawyers convention.

I checked through the manual there is no Ambush rule in the manual (probably because it has just been made up) can't really allow a rule that does not exist.

The term Ambush is mentioned 4 times all of them exclusively to do with units moving into units that are hidden due to the FOW, a combat occurs when these units attempt to enter the hex, I like these Ambush rules they make sense they seem to belong in the real world, your ambush rule seems more in the realms of David Copperfield making BB IV and Carrier III just disappear into thin air.


< Message edited by ironduke1955 -- 8/12/2017 10:08:20 AM >

(in reply to cpdeyoung)
Post #: 213
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/12/2017 8:48:37 AM   
Vic


Posts: 5325
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline
Hi all,

I think its very important everybody realises very well the following:

Most Safe you cannot be backstabbed = At War
Naval ambush/back-stab possible = Neutral
Naval and Land ambush/back-stab possible = Allied

It might be interesting to add some variety to the diplomatic options in PBEM games of ATG.

There might be space for a subvariant of neutral and allied relations where for example a player could prohibit sea hex sharing with neutrals and where a player could prohibit land hex sharing when allied.

Best wishes,
Vic


_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics


(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 214
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/12/2017 9:12:10 AM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

Naval ambush/back-stab possible = Neutral
Naval and Land ambush/back-stab possible = Allied


A player that attacks first already has the advantage of surprise, why add the ability for a combat in a hex that forces the defenders to retreat and then eliminates them ? what is that meant to represent what real life event is this meant to mirror ? Pearl Harbour ? Barbarossa ? the Invasion of Poland ? simple fact if units are forced to retreat then that is what they do retreat and live to fight another day unless there is a physical obstruction to said retreat like enemy units or a physical obstruction. The attack made by cpdeyoung was at sea and there were multiple escape hexes.

The above quote does not explain the mechanics of back stab it uses the word ambush well we know what ambush means its mentioned four times in the manual but back-stab what is a player to make of those two words, and I take it that the above quote is not from the manual so where is this information located ?

< Message edited by ironduke1955 -- 8/12/2017 10:14:06 AM >

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 215
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/12/2017 3:13:49 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 777
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
Isn't Vic the creator of the game? I am not taking sides, if we replay we replay, if we end we end... but I would think what Vic says is what goes for the game, except by house rules agreed to before the start of play. I realize this is a mod, so it plays quite different from the ATG basic game, and has taken me a long time of actual play to begin to see how to play. I am still learning. And no, I had no understanding of this rule which is being discussed. But that doesn't make the rule any less valid.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 216
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/12/2017 5:11:56 PM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Thanks baloo7777 back-stab is not in the manual, as to it being a rule read the above and decide. There is a gap in the game mechanics that we are aware of, back-stab has only just been added to cover a problem that has just cropped up because no one has thought to exploit the gap in the game mechanics until now.

As to my position you invest several months into these games you build up your forces then someone uses a exploit and removes them from the game Vic states.
quote:

There might be space for a subvariant of neutral and allied relations where for example a player could prohibit sea hex sharing with neutrals and where a player could prohibit land hex sharing when allied.

A solution to the current exploit by cpdeyoung. As I said no rule was broken because if you look at the manual no rule exists conversely you could argue that no rule prohibiting the use of this exploit exists. But for myself I take you back to my comment regarding the time spent playing this game if no rule exists then it is down to the players to decide what is acceptable and what is not I say its unacceptable and I have laid out why.

Just to add some thought's on Back Stab Germany and China are not allies so no stab in the back took place, the German vessels that carried out this Back Stab entered a hot war zone the Chinese were conducting a huge military operation against the Soviets Germany is a ally of the Soviet Union !!!!, they were not conducting a reggata or a naval revue. So these German U-Boats entered a war zone and sailed right through and past hundreds of Chinese naval vessels all of them the newest vessel type in their class.

< Message edited by ironduke1955 -- 8/23/2017 7:22:51 AM >

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 217
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/26/2017 4:02:29 PM   
LJBurstyn

 

Posts: 483
Joined: 4/19/2011
Status: offline
So how do keep "neutral" and others from mixing their units with ours. The rules allow neutrals to move into the same hexes as those who are at war with others. I would like to see Vic change this so neutrals cannot enter hexes with units with any nation that is at war. If he does not we SHOULD make this a standard rule for all games.

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 218
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/26/2017 5:13:39 PM   
cpdeyoung


Posts: 4552
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Carolina, USA
Status: offline
A unit can move into a land hex of another country if it is at war with that country, or allied with that country.

How would you change this?

Are you saying that allies should not be able to enter the hexes of countries they are allied with?

At sea any fleet can enter any hex. When Ernie tried to build a wall of ships, Vic deliberately stopped this. A naval unit can pass through or occupy any hex unless it is occupied by an enemy fleet. If this is not allowed a single sub could blockade the Thames so no USA (not belligerent, but allied with Britain) ship could enter London.

Let's be careful here.

Chuck

(in reply to LJBurstyn)
Post #: 219
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/27/2017 8:20:03 AM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Surely its possible for neutrals to be able to sail through other neutral nations but not stack with them, but if we are sensible we see that neutral navies play cat an mouse all the time Russia with NATO the Iranians with the US navy and so on, these are provocations. Now a nation that takes its navy and spreads them thinly over a large area to control sea, is going to lose a large part if not all of those vessels in the event that war is declared. They will be like fish in a barrel. The reason they cannot stack together is the same reason they do not get to close to each other in the real world the possibility that a accident may happen and a war started proximity of rival navies is not encouraged for these reasons so hex sharing is a huge no no. And I say again if the Kriegsmarine wants to blockade the Thames though as a local to these waters there are several miles of territorial coastal waters before international waters are reached if the Germans enter UK territorial waters that's a act of war.

quote:

There might be space for a subvariant of neutral and allied relations where for example a player could prohibit sea hex sharing with neutrals and where a player could prohibit land hex sharing when allied.


This seams like a good start at addressing the problem.


(in reply to cpdeyoung)
Post #: 220
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/27/2017 2:27:26 PM   
LJBurstyn

 

Posts: 483
Joined: 4/19/2011
Status: offline
Yeah, but Germany was not a true "neutral"...they were allied with one of the belligerents in the war. I would consider them moving (or that matter any number of ships) a large number of ships into the same location as my ships an act of war.

An alternate might be to deny the ability of neutrals to declare war on any nation they currently have units stacked with that nation. They must first unstack with any nation they want to declare war against.

As far as allies are concerned the ability to allow allied nations to occupy the same hex or your own nations hexes should be optional. Perhaps a choice when the scenario is started.

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 221
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/30/2017 8:19:03 AM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Waiting for cpdeyoung to replay turn 52 Germany, then we can get on with what was a enjoyable game.

(in reply to LJBurstyn)
Post #: 222
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/31/2017 6:51:52 AM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Ok as cpdeyoung does not look like he wishes to continue this game would the Soviet player or anyone else wish to take over Germany and Italy, I am sure cpdeyoung will provide the password.

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 223
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/31/2017 1:42:36 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 777
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
Too much for me to also play Germany/Italy. I have school 3 days and homework takes a day at least. Perhaps another wants to step in as Germany/Italy.


_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 224
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/31/2017 4:25:38 PM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
I had to offer it to the Soviets but its a lot to take on probably to much as you say, be nice to finish the game though, and as it stands the game is nicely balanced with the slight edge to Germany Italy and the Soviet Union.

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 225
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/31/2017 9:43:58 PM   
cpdeyoung


Posts: 4552
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Carolina, USA
Status: offline
Or, alternatively, you could just play the turn as I presented it,

True, you will be missing some warships.

Chuck

(in reply to ironduke1955)
Post #: 226
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 8/31/2017 10:01:37 PM   
Bombur

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
A third alternative is an allied surrender....

(in reply to cpdeyoung)
Post #: 227
RE: GD1938 Game 24 - 9/1/2017 6:54:31 AM   
ironduke1955


Posts: 1974
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Simply not happening.

Cheat in game 23

A exploit in game 24

As I said before I don't see anyone putting up a serious defence of the above events, you went running to the game designer and he invented a name for what you had done in game 24 but as both the Japanese player (Larry) and Chinese player (Me) both have blown huge holes in the logic and application of Backstab, no counter arguments offered because there are non. One is only left to wonder what kind of player would stoop to using such tactics. If a rule has to be invented after the event then the event must be replayed again. Only a disreputable player would think otherwise.

quote:

Obviously you cannot break the rules of 1 or 2, but that does not mean that you cannot behave in a way not thought of as sportsmanlike. Playing the game only following 1 and 2, is bound to make some people unhappy. Note that the last example in the unspoken rules is a house rule that is needed since there is no way to know which player controls what countries. You can play this way, and not break rules 1 or 2, but it is obviously not meant to be played that way.


quote:

But that does not mean that you cannot behave in a way not thought of as sportsmanlike
erniescwitz hit the nail on the head, if you are happy to cheat and exploit, there may be no limit to what you are willing to do to win. As I also said why not just play the game its possible to win without either cheating or using exploits.

And this does not explain why you have decided to also walk away with the ball from game 23 other than that you are losing and that throwing a Norma Desmond seems a better option than conceding defeat.

< Message edited by ironduke1955 -- 9/1/2017 7:28:25 AM >

(in reply to cpdeyoung)
Post #: 228
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: GD1938 Game 24 Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
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

0.164