Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What is considered gamey

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> What is considered gamey Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 5:05:20 AM   
stldiver


Posts: 724
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: West Palm Beach, USA
Status: offline
Hello everyone,

Since I am just beginning to play WITP PBEM, I have heard about avoiding gamey situtations. Is there a list of what is gamey, I understand that there is a range of interputation, but your opinions are appreciated. Being new I would rather avoid the early mistakes.

Thanks
Stldiver

_____________________________

Showa rules!
Post #: 1
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 5:41:30 AM   
scott64


Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
That depends on those involved. What is gamey to one is not to another. It is a good rule to se the rules beforehand.





_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 2
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 9:04:38 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
Things that are seen as gamey depend of the players, but most have banned night bombings (except on city attack).

Also there was a bug that minelaying attacks weren't intercepted by CAP, I don't know if that has been corrected by the last patches, but if this is not the case, many players didn't use this mission by day.

Overstacking an airfield may also be forbidden by a home rule.

The worst exploit I know of the game mechanisms is to drop 50 paratroops on a base helf by 100 000 men, while 100 000 other men in a nearby enemy base are defeated and should retreat. The para will be vaporized in the combat phase but their presence will be enough to cut the retreat path of the other huge army and all will surrender.

(in reply to scott64)
Post #: 3
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 10:07:01 AM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.



_____________________________


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 4
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 10:37:28 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
Also there was a bug that minelaying attacks weren't intercepted by CAP, I don't know if that has been corrected by the last patches, but if this is not the case, many players didn't use this mission by day.


There is disagreement about whether this is a bug or not. AFAIK no one has yet presented any evidence that aircraft minelaying missions ever were intercepted.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 5
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 10:38:14 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.


USN radar picket ships at Okinawa.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 6
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 11:40:05 AM   
saj42


Posts: 1120
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.


USN radar picket ships at Okinawa.

As you can see stldiver, most 'gamey' exploits are open to interpretation. Using AKs as pickets and bait to draw LBA attacks to many here is 'gamey'. But using TFs of 2x USN DDs as radar picket ships shouldn't be as this was done IRL.

PDUs (Player Defined Upgrades for air units) needs a house rule to avoid the possible 'gamey' action of an Allied player changing all 2e bombers to 4e.

Landing recce forces of a few squads by sub to gain intel on an enemy base is not liked by many players.

Massed hordes of PT boats is another tactic that some frown upon.

Just set the house rules with your opponent before you start a PBEM

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 7
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 11:53:18 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
You know, folks, you might as well be playing "whack a mole" as saying "just set your house rules before you play."

You cannot anticipate everything your opponent may do that you might find objectionable as "gamey." If this game had been designed properly, every d@mned "gamey" technique would be acceptable. Unfortunately, there is so much "slop" that it is almost impossible to play on friendly terms when one player or the other does something "unusual" that succeeds. I have even seen people get POed because they try something "unusual" and it fails, but they think it should have worked, showing that the game is screwed up.

I recently had an Allied player quit on me because I captured Pearl Harbor in January 1942. He was angry because he didn't think it was possible and thought it showed how screwed up the game was. I was happy because I didn't know it was possible and think it shows how screwed up the game is.

I done sayed it befo', and I's gwine sayed it agin: a game is supposed to present you with a situation in which you immerse yourself and deal with the conditions that exist. This game kinda tosses you into someplace where nobody quite knows what will happen, let alone why it happens or how it happens.

So, if some enterprising soul says, "You know, I think the northern route through Anchorage and Seattle to San Francisco looks promising," who's to say it's "gamey" when he undertakes an offensive plan using that as its primary axis of advance? Historically, it would have been a laughable failure. In WitP, it can work - I've seen it work...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 8
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 12:18:29 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1120
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline
House rules are an ON/OFF toggle just like everything else on the game options screen. If both players want a historical style of play then some house rules are probably necessary.

For myself I'm happy to play an 'open' game. If my opponent wanted to take PH or India then go for it. It's up to me to defend against that possibility. As you say, just because something wasn't done IRL life, doesn't mean that it can't be attempted.

I wouldn't knowingly use an exploit of the game mechanics/design, but if it was used on me then I'll return the favour. (by this for example the use of 1 para squad to stop - reset to zero - the movement of a stack of LCUs).

Reminds me of an old proverb - Alls fair in love and war

< Message edited by Tallyho! -- 7/10/2006 12:19:38 PM >


_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 9
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 1:08:25 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
Also there was a bug that minelaying attacks weren't intercepted by CAP, I don't know if that has been corrected by the last patches, but if this is not the case, many players didn't use this mission by day.


There is disagreement about whether this is a bug or not. AFAIK no one has yet presented any evidence that aircraft minelaying missions ever were intercepted.


Maybe because minelaying missions were never flown in daylight ? In Europe German nightfighters shot down hundred of RAF bombers flying minelaying missions, and hundred more were shot down by AA of ships in the minelaying areas. Ok Japanese nightfighters suck but at least they should have the same probability of intercepting a night minelaying raid than a night bombing raid.

I also think that minelaying is possible in WITP from 30k feet, while IRL AC flew at some thousand feet to have a chance to set the mine near the desired place.

That reminds me of another gamey thing: setting kamikazes, FB, torpedo planes and divebombers at their max alt so they will fly over the CAP and not be intercepted until they attack between 100 and 2000 feet.

As for picket ships, in WITP only 1 or 2 units will attack them, not the whole CV air force as in UV, so I don't see it as a gamey tactic, it was done IRL (a picket boat saw the Doolittle CV TF for example).

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 10
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 3:33:00 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.




That was the role of picket destroyers. They tended to attract the kamikazis.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 11
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 4:31:23 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
As for picket ships, in WITP only 1 or 2 units will attack them, not the whole CV air force as in UV, so I don't see it as a gamey tactic, it was done IRL (a picket boat saw the Doolittle CV TF for example).


We are going to disagree. IRL this picked boat which saw Doolittle CV TF wasn't decisive - IIRC Japanese were still suprised and didn't realised that bombers comes from CVs.

WiTP mechanics leaves no options for that. You will know actual strength of enemy, even which CVs (from Combat screen - VF-2 bombing..) are involved in the battle.


_____________________________


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 12
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 4:34:48 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.




That was the role of picket destroyers. They tended to attract the kamikazis.


Dont think we are understand each other. I put kamikazes in the brackets because i meant that these picket ships are kamikazes - they spot enemy CV TF and, bye, bye...

WiTP is game on strategical level, not tactical....

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 13
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 8:16:54 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
Gamey depends. To some players it is the thing that you do that they didn't expect. If you come up with an unusual tactic they will cry foul.

However, it is good to find someone who has roughly the same desire for historical play. My PBEM partner and I like fairly historical play, but do allow some latitude for creative tactics. It's been a thoroughly enjoyable game.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 14
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 9:16:15 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
You need to aggree on some house rules for...

China. China can be rolled by "simply" stacking all Japanese Divisions into mega-LCU-KB and stomping the Chinese bases in detail. It works, up until Chungking. I've never seen a well-defended Chungking fall. Still, you can clobber china by July. Then all those IJA Divisions are free to invade INdia or Oz (even if all you did was pin-down Chungking). Also, you can speed the process up by bombing the resouces in China (starves their units even faster). But what would have been the historical point of invading China in the first place then (and Allies can't do much to stop it). On the flip side, the allies can (briefly) stack 250+ 4e bombers in Chungking, and blow the snot out of every Japanese strat resource in about 2 weeks (or until the supplies run out, which happens quite quickly).
In my case:
a. We have either agreed to a truce where cities are no longer changing hands. Or we have "militarized zone", where we have agreed that certain can be attacked, and others not.
b. No 4e bombers in China. I realize this isn't historical. But 4e bombers can utterly wipe out japans production in 1942, and this was simply part of our truce terms.
c. No strat bombing from any Chinese city, and no bombing of Chinese resources. Killing chinese resoureces the whole army littearlly starves to death. And no strat bombing from Chinese cities (again, very easily can cripple Japan), just means I need to secure bases in SEAsia or Malaya to reach that far.

Russia. Russian can't even move her units until Japan attacks her. This allows Japan to mass her armies, and attack Russia and destory them in detail. Similar to China, except worse, because Russia can't even move until IJA crosses the border.
a. Some players activiate Russia immediately on war start by sending small bombing mission to activate them. Russian can them move units freely to set up a defense.
b. Give Russia a 30-day "war warning" and then activate them as above, so that opponent can move units into realistic defenses.

4e bombers. I love 'em. But especially because the replacement rates (and with PDUs), seem fairly high, you can get into a situation where all the Allied bombers are converted into LB-30s and B-17s. My personal house rules for 4e bombers in one of my games...

a. Only 16x plane squadrons and 48x plane groups may be converted into 4e bombers. This actually works out to the exact same number of available 4e bombers in stock (altho in different dispositions). Limiting it to 16-48 is simply easier to remember. Limiting only starting 2e bombers to 2e bombers and 4e to 4e (another common rule), actually gives you LESS 4e bombers than stock, but it's also easy to remember.
b. I limit to only 2-48x groups of LB-30s. The LB-30 rate is very high, and before long everything will convertto them if not constrained. In limiting LB-30s, I've got a "reasonable" number of 4e bombers in May. I am just now able to fill out my avaible squadrons (same as stock) with 4e bombers. Otherwise, you could fill everything out in about March by supplimenting with LB-30s.
c. For 1942 at least, I'm limited to no more than 48x plane group, or 3-16x plane squadrons of 4e bombers at a base. This limits the ability to lanch the mega strikes. 2e bombers are no limit tho. 250x 2e bombers will certainly do a job on a base. But 250x 4e bombers will simply vaporize it.

Pilot Pools I'm not sure, but I think some folks are reporting issues with the named pilot pools. I don't use them anyway (you can convert patrol pilots to fighter pilots, rather different skill set). But it's something you'll want to consider.

No invasions except at base or dot hexes. LCUs do not suffer disablements for lack of prep, like they do if they land at a base. Basically, you can land anywhere -BUT- a base hex, without penalty. That rather defeats the intent I believe.

Lots of squawking about PTs I've never seen them all that effective. But I usually only run them in TFs of 4 - 6. Some folks put 25 in a TF, and that tends to be very deadly. Frankly, I don't know if 4x6 is any better or worse than 25. Again, discuss with your opponent.

Cadres Some folks don't like evacing cadres (just a tiny fragment via sub). This means when the parent is destroyed, the fragment -usually- will rebuild to the whole unit. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, since formations were sometimes rebuilt historically, and there are lots of formations missing anyway. It works for both sides.

Cadre #2Also dropping a cadre to block the retreat of a division is a bit gamey (cadre normally equals about 2 - 3 squads), somehow I don't think a real division would care if they were "cut off" by 30 men, but the computer has this habit of forcing a surrender because of "blocked retreat paths".

Dividing/Re-Divinding Divisions in combat When you divide a division, it does NOT carry over the disruption fatigue of the parent, into the regiments. So you have a tired division, and you can divide it into Rgts and they're suddenly rested.

CAP levels Some folks constrain CAP limits to 50%. While I have certainly seen "uber-CAP" slaughter strikes, I personally don't think it's necessary. To each his own.

Probably other stuff.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 15
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 10:59:17 PM   
6971grunt


Posts: 427
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Ya sure, you betcha
Status: offline
I would agree that "gamey" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. I would hope that any opponent of mine would not be restricted by what was done "historically" by the sides since that teaches nothing about "possibilities".

We know that both sides, initially, were very conservative in their apporaches to the war. The Japanese were concerned about seizing and maintianing their resources though a maticulas apporach [i.e., seize Malaya first then Burma. Sumatra, Java and Borneo, etc.] The USN was a conservation of resource [because of the war in Eurpoe] and fighting a defensive battle.

Is it "gamey" to invade Hawaii within the first months of the war? Yes, if you think it was not the historically thinking at the time. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities". Is it "gamey" to bring the entire Chinese Army into Burma to stop an IJA drive to cut-off the Burma Road? Yes, if you think it was historical folly or they could not have supplied the area to prevent capture[historically true]. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities".

Is it "gamey" to use the rules in a "creative manner"? Yes, if it's your ox being gored. No, if it's not your ox being gored.

Look guys - we all look for rules to use to our advantage [on a small scale] - we want to win, but remember that old legal statement quid pro quo because your opponent will take note.

< Message edited by grunt6971 -- 7/10/2006 11:00:44 PM >


_____________________________

"Over?! It's not over until we say it's over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!" John Blutarsky from the Movie "Animal House"

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 16
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/10/2006 11:23:30 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
All in all, communication, preferrably as much beforehand as possible, is key. Just keep an open dialog. You're talking starting a game that potentially last years (I have two games, almost 2 years old).

But you won't have thought of everthing. Things -will- come up, that push your patience. There will be patches that come along that afftect game-play, perhaps dramatically. Again, you need to talk it out, to agree how to handle the new situation.

Communication.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 17
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 12:03:48 AM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline
Feinder hits it on the head. You have to think of your opponant as a companion in your game and not someone to beat on. If he is not having fun then he is likley to quit and now no one is happy.

Winning is nice but if it is done in such a fashion that the other guy feels like he is getting a raw deal by abusing the system why should he keep playing?

Grunt also makes a good point. Be prepared to institute in-game rules that benifit the other guy if you want some for yourself.

All in all, play the game like an adult who is in it for the sport and not a 4 year old who just wants to win at all costs.

The solution I have proposed many times is to play 2 games (one as each side). This way any gamey moves can be used by both sides and cancel out.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 18
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 1:15:11 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12166
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
RUPD3658;
You and Feinder hit it. the game needs to fun for all parties. We play it for enjoyment after all. If you are playing with the right people, you can lose and still have a blast.
Bruce

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 19
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 3:20:46 AM   
AirGriff


Posts: 701
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
Look in the After Action Reports section of this forum and the guys usually list their house rules in the beginning. Lots of good ideas there. Gary Childress and his opponent have some good rules, in my opinion.



(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 20
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 4:35:05 AM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12166
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
The AAR's also tells you whose having fun and whose not. You can be pretty sure the long running AAR's are enjoyable for the players.

(in reply to AirGriff)
Post #: 21
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 8:19:01 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I would consider the use of any kind of "picket" ships (except subs) gamey.  Yes, the U.S. had destroyer pickets, but that was mostly in Okinawa in 1945, and they had the pickets for advance radar warning of airstrikes, not to draw massive airstrikes on themselves and tire out the enemy airforce--which is why people often do it in the game. 

Other gamey stuff:

-landing small portions of ground units in an enemy retreat hex to block retreat and force a surrender. 
-Landing troops in non-base/dot hexes to bypass enemy defenses.
-landing troops from submarines or fast transports to launch "recon raids" that tell you exactly what combat units the enemy has in the hex. 
-Taking base hexes using troops landed by submarine.  The never happened during the war
-Offloading carrier-based bomber squadrons to load extra carrier-capable land based fighters.  This abuses the already very powerful CAP rules of this game.


(in reply to BrucePowers)
Post #: 22
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 3:12:50 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
One quick note on activating Russia early, that my brother reminded me of :

If you activate Russia at game start, it eliminates the manchurian garrison requirment. So you'll want to have an understanding that Manchuko units can't move into China, so as to maintain the garrison vs. Russia until war is "really" declared.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 23
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/11/2006 11:54:45 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
I like the houserules that Przemco is setting in this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1170503


_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/12/2006 6:27:09 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Those house rules in your link are very good. I think I'd have trouble remembering them all, but they're excellent standards for anyone interested.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 25
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/12/2006 3:30:53 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: grunt6971

I would agree that "gamey" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. I would hope that any opponent of mine would not be restricted by what was done "historically" by the sides since that teaches nothing about "possibilities".

We know that both sides, initially, were very conservative in their apporaches to the war. The Japanese were concerned about seizing and maintianing their resources though a maticulas apporach [i.e., seize Malaya first then Burma. Sumatra, Java and Borneo, etc.] The USN was a conservation of resource [because of the war in Eurpoe] and fighting a defensive battle.

Is it "gamey" to invade Hawaii within the first months of the war? Yes, if you think it was not the historically thinking at the time. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities". Is it "gamey" to bring the entire Chinese Army into Burma to stop an IJA drive to cut-off the Burma Road? Yes, if you think it was historical folly or they could not have supplied the area to prevent capture[historically true]. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities".

Is it "gamey" to use the rules in a "creative manner"? Yes, if it's your ox being gored. No, if it's not your ox being gored.

Look guys - we all look for rules to use to our advantage [on a small scale] - we want to win, but remember that old legal statement quid pro quo because your opponent will take note.


What is gamey is what exploits the defects in the game engine. To quote both examples here:

_ invading Hawaii at the start of the game is oK for me if you don't exploit the magic Japanese move at the start of the game... Having 10 Japanese troops convoys at some hundred miles from Hawaii on day one would never have been possible, USN will have reacted before that. On the other hand, if the convoys leave Japan on day 1 or 2, I will say: let's go.

_ sending the whole Chinese army to Burma is on the other hand gamey IMOO, because the game engine will continue to produce Chinese reinforcements even if all China is under Japanese control. The same for picking up fragments of Dutch and Philipinno units and then rebuilding them in Australia. From where came the men ?

_ night bombing is not taking into account the difficulty to fly great raids at night, and are far too much effective, so are effectively banned by most players.

Then you have OOB or map "defects" that will change the outcome of the war, but are like the game is... For example, the Alaska weather is far milder than IRL, and so operating a major offensive here is possible... In stock map, NW Australia both produces hundred of supplies and is linked by train to the E coast, so is a logical place to base hundred of heavy bombers and so on. IRL it was a backwater for both sides... Japan has probably too much transport and fuel, Allied has too much heavy bombers... For both sides, replacement arrive magically on the frontline far too fast... etc...

On the other hand, it is a game and what matters is that both sides enjoy it. So if you want to use airfield night bombing and your opponent too, let's go. But you will find that the Japanese can do nothing to stop Allied heavy bombers at night, and so is unable to defend anything with fighters in range of them...

(in reply to 6971grunt)
Post #: 26
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/12/2006 11:31:43 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
To each their own and all that BUT I would suggest that you negotiate anything and everything you can possibly imagine BEFORE you start a game.

I'm only on my 2nd game of WiTP and was, initially, very vocal in not wanting to cripple the game by adopting any major house rules beyond banning things which didn't conform to newtonian physics, were uncounterable by one's opponent or were exploitation of game mechanics. Anything else was to be negotiated as it arose with "reasonableness" being used as the measure for compromise.

Well, you've guessed it, it turns out what I view as contrary to newtonian physics, uncounterable ( as in there is nothing a player can do to oppose a given game mechanism) and an exploitation of game mechanics is viewed by my opponent as "reasonable". Since I passed up several opportunities because they weren't "reasonable" (notably an opportunity to get a land base in India early in 1942) I feel raped. End result: while we both agreed to minimal house rules very, very different understandings of what is "reasonable" and what isn't have created a situation where both of us probably feel the other is going against the spirit of what we agreed.

We both got to our respective positions with the best of intentions and with no intention of exploiting the game in unfair ways BUT I can tell you that once you are in such a situation it is very, very difficult to row back from the precipice and continue the game in a manner enjoyable to both. We're discussing it but everything would have been so much easier if we'd just discussed things on December 6th 1941 ;).

So, take some advice from a convert.... House rules, which I was initially entirely opposed to, DO help make the game much more enjoyable and much more likely to last into 1946. I just started a new game and the list of house rules is about ten times as long as it was in my 2nd game. So, learn from my mistake and prevent yourself getting into a fight with your opponent because of widely differing interpretations of a grey area. The less grey areas the less chance of such a problem and the more enjoyable your game will be.


I am finishing off the house rules for my current game and have researched many of the AARs in the AAR section. MY house rules are probably a lot looser than most would like but I think they're a pretty good mix between historical possibility and minimising the major F'ups in the game's design.

(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 27
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/12/2006 11:39:32 PM   
Wolfie1

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Blackpool, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

To each their own and all that BUT I would suggest that you negotiate anything and everything you can possibly imagine BEFORE you start a game.

I'm only on my 2nd game of WiTP and was, initially, very vocal in not wanting to cripple the game by adopting any major house rules beyond banning things which didn't conform to newtonian physics, were uncounterable by one's opponent or were exploitation of game mechanics. Anything else was to be negotiated as it arose with "reasonableness" being used as the measure for compromise.

Well, you've guessed it, it turns out what I view as contrary to newtonian physics, uncounterable ( as in there is nothing a player can do to oppose a given game mechanism) and an exploitation of game mechanics is viewed by my opponent as "reasonable". Since I passed up several opportunities because they weren't "reasonable" (notably an opportunity to get a land base in India early in 1942) I feel raped. End result: while we both agreed to minimal house rules very, very different understandings of what is "reasonable" and what isn't have created a situation where both of us probably feel the other is going against the spirit of what we agreed.

We both got to our respective positions with the best of intentions and with no intention of exploiting the game in unfair ways BUT I can tell you that once you are in such a situation it is very, very difficult to row back from the precipice and continue the game in a manner enjoyable to both. We're discussing it but everything would have been so much easier if we'd just discussed things on December 6th 1941 ;).

So, take some advice from a convert.... House rules, which I was initially entirely opposed to, DO help make the game much more enjoyable and much more likely to last into 1946. I just started a new game and the list of house rules is about ten times as long as it was in my 2nd game. So, learn from my mistake and prevent yourself getting into a fight with your opponent because of widely differing interpretations of a grey area. The less grey areas the less chance of such a problem and the more enjoyable your game will be.


I am finishing off the house rules for my current game and have researched many of the AARs in the AAR section. MY house rules are probably a lot looser than most would like but I think they're a pretty good mix between historical possibility and minimising the major F'ups in the game's design.


So what are your house rules?

_____________________________




Teamwork is essential - it gives the enemy someone else to shoot at.....

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 28
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/13/2006 12:17:39 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Overall Settings
Surprise is ON.
Non-Historical first turn allowed.
PDU ON.
Japanese sub doctrine can be ON or OFF at the discretion of the Japanese player.
Allied Damage control is ON.

Overall Mechanics:
China: Chinese units cannot be re-assigned so that when they are destroyed they re-appear elsewhere. The exception to this are Chinese SEAC units. Even for these units once all Chinese cities are taken they should have their replacements turned off.

Soviet Union: Any non-Soviet Allied forces which arrive in the Soviet Union are deemed to be interred and cannot be moved from the base or hex at which they initially arrived. Furthermore they must have their replacements set to OFF. Once the Soviet Union is activated these forces regain full functionality. If the entire Soviet Union is captured but some Soviet formation fragments remain elsewhere they should have replacements turned off as Stalin would not be sending replacements to CONUSA etc to rebuild shattered units.

India: Should the Japanese player take all of India except Karachi it is at his discretion whether or not to capture Karachi. If he captures Karachi he will withdraw from it and allow the Allied player to retake it with a shipped in BF in order to allow British and West African reinforcements to arrive. All reinforcements arriving in Karachi, EXCEPT Indian troops, must be shipped out to Australia via transport as soon as is feasible. In addition 50% of the supply, fuel and resources arriving at Karachi per month can also be shipped to Australia. If the Japanese player elects not to capture Karachi the same rules as above apply ( the only difference is that in taking Karachi the Japanese player would eliminate some currently extant units at the cost of a prolonged siege). India will, in addition, be declared Independent and Japanese forces must be withdrawn. In return Allied re-invasion of India or Ceylon is prohibited during the later course of the game.  ( This dynamic gives the Japanese player a reward for doing well in India whilst allowing British and african reinforcements to continue arriving in-theatre and is, I feel, reasonable to both sides).
Australia. Should Australia be captured in their entirety then the troops and aerial squadrons raised in Australia should have their replacements turned OFF. So long as a single base in Australia remains in Allied hands Australian forces can have replacements turned ON.
New Zealand. The same rule as applies to Australia applies here.

CONUSA: If the Japanese player can capture all bases in CONUSA then all US forces on-map have their replacements turned off.
Canada: Same rule as above.


Surprise Mechanics:
Japanese forces are allowed any number of port, airfield and ground attacks by their air force on Turn 1. IOW Japanese forces can attack Manilla, Singapore and Pearl Harbour ports on Turn 1.

Japanese forces invading the Soviet Union must activate Soviet forces 30 days before they intend to attack. E.g. If intending to attack on 1st September it would be good form to activate Soviet forces on 1st August.

On the first turn Japanese forces can use the 1st turn movement bonus to land anywhere they wish on-map or move a great distance toward any landing area which cannot be reached using the first turn movement bonus. There are no restrictions on where they can land. There is no need to limit these invasions ( or any further invasions) to areas covered by Japanese aerial forces. it is up to the allied player to make the Japanese player pay if he does this. Many times in war the side which did something insanely risky or "stupid" was the side which won so completely forbidding things which often succeeded, although risky, is invalid.

No limitation on number of Pearl Harbour attacks.

Japanese forces must NOT position subs, surface combat or carrier task forces to intercept known Allied TFs already at sea.

Allied forces cannot initiate or alter any major naval, ground or aerial unit movements on turn 1. Neither can bombing altitude be changed although CAP percentage can be changed.


PDUs:
There is no limit to the Japanese ability to change units from divebomber to level bomber.
In return there is no limit on Allied ability to change units from twin to four-engined bombers at will.

Submarines and ASW:
There is no limit on the number of ships in an ASW TF under 1.795+. Prior to 1.795+ ASW TFs are limited to a size of 6 + 1 ( per year of war)... So 6 ships in 41, 7 in 42, 8 in 43, 9 in 44 and 10 in 45.
No submarine-based invasions. If you want information then at the very least commit a half-full AP ;).

Air War:
Four-engined bombers set to naval attack can fly no lower than 15,000 feet after 1st January 1943. This is to allow the Allied player to mount desperate and costly defences in 1942 but to prevent them from turning the sea into a no-go area for Japanese forces after 1943 when the Allies are awash in B24s and, later, B29s.
No limitations on Corsair basing on CVs. In return there is no limitation on the types of planes the Japanese carriers can carry.

Mining:
No restrictions at all.

Ground
No breakdown of LCU's in combat to reduce fatigue and disruption.
No Shock Attack + Pursue in terrain with only a path which is wooded, swamp or mountainous.


It should be noted that this set of house rules hamstrings the Allies a LOT more than the rules under which my AAR as a Japanese player is being played. I have begun a game under these house rules as the Allies so I'm restricting myself a hell of a lot more than I restricted the Allies when I had a lot less experience with the game. IOW these are rules I DO consider fair for the Allies since I'm playing under them.

(in reply to Wolfie1)
Post #: 29
RE: What is considered gamey - 7/13/2006 1:21:06 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Well, let's take inventory at this late date.

There are numerous "mods" to this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "house rules" for this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "suggestions" on how to fix what's wrong with it.

Who's up for a game design that stands on its own two feet for a change?

Of course, that will be unpopular with those who start clamoring for "moddability" before a game is even published...

How can we continue to discuss the merits and faults of a game that is not played in its original form by anyone who is interested in contributing to the "discussion" (think of the poor b@stards out there who bought this thing and play it raw without even knowing that all the stuff on these forums exists)?

I don't even know what WitP is anymore. As time goes by, I find myself caring less and less.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> What is considered gamey Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

0.167