Am I a Cry Baby????

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Am I a Cry Baby????

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 >> The War Room >> Am I a Cry Baby????

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 1:53:55 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

Folks, I need your take on Japanese hunting CVs on turn one. Basically I want to know if I�m a crybaby or have legitimate concerns over this concept. I recently started a game with JFB that I will not identify. As usual in getting the boundaries of the game set up I clearly indicated that I wanted a realistic game but would welcome non-historical concepts that are within the bounds of �realism�. Few house rules were set up but to me the understanding of realistic was foundational and I thought understood by my opponent. I never even mentioned CV hunting on the first turn as a no no, as I thought it was long established that the Japanese player could not do this unless the Allied player purposely sent his two CVs north west looking for trouble!

In my opening move I had the Lexington heading straight west (the predisposition of the Lex in the DDB scenario set up has her going northwest which I saw as tempting fate and not needed to �deliver� the marine squadron on her to Midway). The Lex was struck by at least a one CV and one CVL Japanese TF on hex 151.107, being hit by both torpedoes and 250 kg bombs (thus Vals were involved in the attack). Given that the Val range is at best 7 hexes and given that the first move is only half a move (day only) that means that my opponent would have to place the Jap TF east of Wake and well south of Midway. Further my opponent�s TF had to end up on the hex line of 100, which means it was two hexes SOUTH of the Wake hex line and NINE below Midway! I find this placement and outcome to be totally unrealistic. The only reason that the Japanese were able to sneak up on Pearl is that they came directly from the NORTH of Hawaii so as to remain under the weather front that obscured their movements until December 6th. How would a Jap TF get to a position east of Wake and south of Midway? Impossible without being detected from Midway! No it doesn't even remotely ring true.

My opponent counters that I too could be considered gamey in my move of the Lexington in that I had her going to Wake to rescue the Marine squadron there. Yet if I wanted to protect Wake, northwest is the way to go. I was simply getting out of dodge (and heading in the historical direction that it was intended to head on the actual day of the attack). The Japs thought the US CVs were at Pearl, there was no need or intention to protect Wake. I certainly understand A-Historical approaches but in terms of the first turn my opponent knows where my CVs are and that the logical move for them to steam is away from the action. Which is what they did. My opponent states that he was placing his TF units to "protect" his invasion of Wake, a tiny sideshow that would play out a few days in the future. This action was at the expense of diminishing his attack on Pearl (or any port for that matter). This in my view is not even close to realistic. Wake was a backwater and will always be such. The only reason it made the history books is that the Marines actually defeated the first invasion. How much does one hear about the first battle of Guam? Nothing as there was nothing of historical importance there in '41. This is an example of where history and the game have problems. The Japanese player knows where the US CVs are and sent a force in their direction when in reality there was absolutely no reason for such a move. Wake was and remains a speck in the ocean. Japan�s whole philosophy was to destroy the Pacific fleet, and yet my opponent sent part of the KB to protect an invasion that amounts to a mouse biting on an elephant! I can understand his desire to split the KB to hit another port, but not protecting Wake! In truth if I were the Japanese player I doubt I would invade it to begin with, it does nothing more than provide safe target practice for the US later in the war! I certainly have no problems loosing the Lady Lex, but I would prefer to do so under conditions that somewhat reflect possible actions.

Clearly at the start both players know too much. That's why the first turn has restrictions. It simply has to have that or there is no initial balance. In my view, taking unfair advantage of that knowledge though CV hunting by the Japs on the first turn is a no no. Break up the KB (even by one CV, or even a CVL from another important operation) to protect a third rate side show when the whole "raison detre" of that KB was to destroy the Pacific Fleet doesn't seem to even remotely reflect reality. Hitting Manila does, trying to get to Singapore does (if that is allowed), but not Wake.

For this move to be needed my opponent had to use pre-event knowledge that his Wake invasion was in trouble, which only can be known after the invasion failed and that is many days in the future. For the strike in question to take place it means that my opponent would have had to have the Jap TF east of Wake and well south of Midway at the outset to attack ships in hex 151,107.

My opponent sites the move of the PoW and Repulse away from Singapore as also taking advantage of pre-event knowledge. I don't agree at all. If one looks at the game's Dec 8th start AFTER the attack of Pearl, both ships are in Singapore with NO move planned. So if one starts from that date the Allied player has every right to avoid the stupid decision to risk those ships in a dash up the Malaysian coast, and it would NOT be considered taking advantage of "pre-knowledge" or gamey but taking into account the effectiveness of the Japanese as demonstrated on Dec. 8th and 9th. So on the degree of "gamey" scale I would see this as almost zero compared to having a Jap CV TF south of Midway and east of Wake.

To me this move by my opponent is CV hunting. Am I being a first turn sore looser or is my objection realistic given my open desire to have a historical game with realistic a-historical moves as a possibility? I look forward to your views. Thanks. Hal

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 2:07:06 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

_____________________________

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 2

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 2:10:31 PM

Encircled

Posts: 1963
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

What Chickenboy said

Though anything other than Lex and Enterprise running for the hills on Turn 1 is asking for trouble.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 2:18:59 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2298
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

Absolutely not a crybaby, Dr Hal.

Agree with the quoted post completely.

I prefer to play the Japanese side and would consider this a breech of trust in anything but an anything goes match.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 4

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 2:21:54 PM

kbfchicago

Posts: 343
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline

+1 above comments.

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 5

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 2:26:22 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9601
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

+1

Except for TF Z ... that was one TF whose position was publicized ... everyone knew where they were. The Brits wanted everyone to know as they thought it a deterrent. So hunting it is free game in my opinion.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 3:10:13 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

+1

Except for TF Z ... that was one TF whose position was publicized ... everyone knew where they were. The Brits wanted everyone to know as they thought it a deterrent. So hunting it is free game in my opinion.

PaxMondo, just a point of clarification, I didn't mean to suggest that Force Z should be off limits for attack, all I meant to convey was that I don't think it "gamey" to NOT send Force Z up the Malaysian peninsula. If you will recall if you start the game on Dec 7th, it has the PoW plotted to go up and intercept the Jap invasion. I had it move in the opposite direction, which was viewed as "gamey" akin to my opponent's CV TF defending Wake. Sorry for the confusion.

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 1/5/2014 4:35:06 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 7

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 3:13:43 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

dr. hal,

Your attitude and assumptions seem quite correct to me.

While it is not gamey for the JFB's to head to, say, Truk after the PH strike (and hence you can "run into" the KB if you head west) -- targeting the hapless US carriers only based on pre-game set-up knowledge is dirty pool.

You probably now have a good idea of what the rest of the game will be like with this opponent.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 8

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 4:04:45 PM

witpqs

Posts: 25157
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Agree with all of the above and particularly with Feltan's post. You invested a lost in turn one, but will invest a ton more as things get worse. It looks like they surely will.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 9

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 4:21:20 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9601
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

+1

Except for TF Z ... that was one TF whose position was publicized ... everyone knew where they were. The Brits wanted everyone to know as they thought it a deterrent. So hunting it is free game in my opinion.

PaxMondo, just a point of clarification, I didn't mean to suggest that Force Z should be off limits for attack, all I meant to convey was that I don't think it "gamey" to NOT send Force Z up the Malaysian peninsula. If you will recall if you start the game on Dec 7th, it has the PoW plotted to go up and intercept the Jap invasion. I had it move in the opposite direction, which was viewed as "gamey" akin to my opponent's CV TF defending Wake. Sorry for the confusion.

Correct and thanks for clarifying. The allies can do whatever they want with Force Z ... But the IJ know it is starting in Singers and they can hunt it if they want. All other allied TF's, to my knowledge, were operating under normal wartime procedures on Dec 7 ... so the IJ's knowledge of their location was less precise.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 10

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 4:53:29 PM

pws1225

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

+1 to the above, and you were correct to 'cry' foul.

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 11

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 4:54:33 PM

setloz

Posts: 97
Joined: 1/14/2013
From: Romania
Status: offline

Hello,

Since Dr.Hal was gracious enough not to name his opponent, I will step up and explain my side of the story.

First - the set of rules agreed was minimal. DrHal mentioned liking historical play but inovation being a must. Only rule that was agreed was paying PPs to cross national boundaries.

Second - Turn one - I tried to have a balanced turn, with few a-historical things and a lot of the "historical" ones. That meant invasion of Khota Baru, not Mersing. On the a-historical side, I invaded Singkawang, Jolo and Manado. No hunting of Boise or Houston, or any other TFs with known starting points.

Third - KB disposition. Being a game with very few agreed rules, I tried to be prepared. I've seen on the forums here games where the allies send CVs to strike KB while it is striking the PH port. So I set-up one of the KB's kate squadrons on naval attack, while the rest were set to port strike.
I also made sure to have solid escorts for all my invasions.
KB placement was exactly as the scenario set-it, I didn't change the hex. Nor for the oiler fleet.

Fourth - The invasions plan. Since I don't belive my game against Dr Hal will continue, there is no need for opsec. I wanted to do 3 landings in two weeks: wake, midway and Johnston island.
For these to be successful, I thought it would be best to have the KB head north after day one to cover Midway and to have a mini-KB covering wake. The second TF would be composed of 1CVL and one CV split up from the KB.

Fifth - what happened. Lexington moved straight west and got into range of my two TFs (one with the CV, one with the CVL) and these reacted towards it.
So Lex will probably sink.

Sixth - what I belive.
I tested the same turn without changing orders for Lexington - there is no CV clash as Lex goes 3 hexes north then all the way southeast towards Johnston island.

So, to be clear: moving Lex on the historical course, or even on an a-historical one northwards, southwards or southeastwards would NOT result in a CV clash. Even a SW move would not result in the CV clash.
Moving LEX directly westwards will generate a reaction from IJN CVL and CV TFs and ensure a CV battle.

And since Dr. Hal never explained why Lex was moving westwards, I asked around: there is a VB Marine Squadron on Wake that gets destroyed when Wake is conquered. (It was destroyed in real life.) Some Allied players view moving Lex towards Wake as a low-risk move to rescue that VBF Marine Squadron by moving it onboard Lexington. This move can also be a springboard for a raid on Wake invasion in case the KB shows itself around Midway. (which I planned to do anyway like I said earlier).

Seventh - my offer. I explained in detail to Dr.Hal that it was not my intention to hunt his CV. I also offered a redo of the turn with him moving Lex anywhere else but westwards which would ensure that no CV clash ensues on day one.

I'm not trying to be "sneaky" and pull "shenanigans". If I did, I would have landed at Mersing or Singapore on turn one. Or I would have sent 3 TFs of 2CVs each in a search pattern west and southwest of PH, especially to hunt and destroy the allied CVs while also having TFs ready for Boise and Houston. I didn't do any of these.

As I told him, I belived that moving LEX westwards to recover the Wake airplanes or even raiding the invasion force is a risk vs reward mission. However, I also told him that we should settle this between ourselves, as two starting PBEM partners should.
I am willing to post my e-mails here as well as the savegame so that everyone can see that I was in no way offensive or categoric.

In the end, I belive that the expectations for this game were completely different for both of us and we failed to communicate about it.
To be precise - Dr.Hal expected no splitting KB and no a-historical positioning of any IJN CVs while a-historical positioning of allied CVs being allowed.
I expected him to position his CVs anywhere on the map, including within strike distance of KB and prepared for that.

It's all about expectations.

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 12

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 5:22:19 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

Setloz three quick points, at no point did I say you were "offensive" nor were you. Your correspondence was correct in all manner. The second point is that it's simply not possible for two (I didn't know you used two separate TFs), let alone one TF to get into the positions you describe without giving away the element of surprise which I pointed out to you was foundational to the whole Japanese plan. Thus my view of a "gamey" move. Your predisposition was simply not possible. A quick final point; as for where the Lex goes, as I pointed out to you in my PM, the DDB game has the Lex going NW, not west with the ultimate destination hex right off Wake! I dropped that and put in the direction going straight west. The VF partial squadron on Wake was expendable and the Lex in her current state couldn't have taken them on, she has the VB squadron on her as well as her whole air wing. Thus she was maxed out.

Your are correct, it's about expectations and ours was mismatched. You went to another forum for support of your views and actions. I went to this one. Hal

_____________________________

(in reply to setloz)

Post #: 13

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 5:55:10 PM

setloz

Posts: 97
Joined: 1/14/2013
From: Romania
Status: offline

Re: second point - what is "the element of surprise" have to do with the japanese player splitting KB and sending half to bomb Manila? Or sending Kaga and Ryujo near Singapore as Greyjoy did?
I didn't think that I had to stay exactly within the historical strike. That's why I'm saying it's a miscomunication.

Also, regarding your explanation - I just opened the scenario, hit end turn and loaded the allied turn. Lexington starts at 156,107 and has a plotted course 2 hex NW, 2 hex east, 9 hexes south east. I don't know where you get the ultimate destination hex right off wake because it goes towards Johnston island where it also historically went (according to wikipedia Lex spent the time between dec 7th and dec 13th between Johnston and Hawaii).

But yes, if it did go directly towards Wake, on a straight west course or any course with that final destination I'd be completely guilty of what you say. Because I would know that the LEX TF goes to wake and my TFs would be exactly in the way.
Except that Lex TF doesn't go to Wake. Like I said, it goes southeastwards. Moving it towards wake is actually what caused my CVs to react and clash with Lex.

I'm just trying to set things straight. Please don't use incorrect facts as that would point to me as being a bad guy who knows Lex is going to Wake and sends Tfs to intercept it. I had no idea you would send it westwards. But I already admited my CV +CVL were sent near Wake in case you did send a CV towards wake, to raid the wake invasion when I sent KB north to help invade Midway.

Again, as the savegame is too large for the forum to accept, I will PM you it + pwd. You can see for yourself the dispositions and how not changing orders for Lexington to direction west would never have got us here. :(
I will also PM both of these to anyone interested. Or you could open DBB-C scen 28 hit end turn and check again for yourself.

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 14

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 6:08:13 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

This public display is at an end. You have your view, I've mine. I want to thank all that expressed a view in this thread and in many ways I'm sorry I ever brought this up.

_____________________________

(in reply to setloz)

Post #: 15

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 6:11:45 PM

setloz

Posts: 97
Joined: 1/14/2013
From: Romania
Status: offline

Not my choice for a public display.
Like I said in my PM, I hope you find a partner more to your liking and I hope there are no hard feelings for this lack of communication.

best regards

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 16

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 8:45:37 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to setloz)

Post #: 17

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 9:43:34 PM

Gaspote

Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline

i'm playing a pretty interesting game with these settings :
-No CV hunt in first months of game.
-No major CV operations in first months(2 or 3) of game

I think it should be apply by everyone because it's historical. First CV raids are in february (Marshall-Gilbert and Darwin). Nothing before except PH. It keep balance because allies get nothing in first months of war to counter Japanese carriers. So it could be raid over PH again and again and midway japanese in december. Ask my AI opponents

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 18

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/5/2014 9:56:27 PM

witpqs

Posts: 25157
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

He kept his opponent anonymous, his opponent chose to speak up.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 19

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 2:14:28 AM

btd64

Posts: 7592
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

Oh boy,

I will say there are parts of both sides that are interesting. I'm not going to take sides, but I do like what Gaspote said.
cheers

and like we say in Distant Worlds, pass the Romulian Ale.

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 20

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 4:47:20 AM

Dobey455

Posts: 443
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

In my first PBEM in the old WITP I made the same mistake of saying "Oh, hey, let's not worry about house rules, lets just have a Gentlemans agreement to 'Play Historically'"

Needless to say it ruined that PBEM.
Agreeing to play historically without house rules is the best way to ensure you sow the seeds for future argument with your PBEM opponent because, unless you are planning to re-enact the second world war - blow by blow - EVERYTHING you do will by ahistoric to some extent.

I believe that the only legitimate claim you have to unfair play is if you believe the the true purpose of your opponent putting his carriers near wake was to hunt your CV's.
If you believe your opponent when he says that the reason for them being there was to protect an amphibious landing, then you have NO grounds to complain.
The Japanese commander can deploy his forces where he wants, when he wants. As can you.

Let me pose this - let's say that you made the same move of running west towards Wake and he had not deployed any carriers there.
If Lex had stumbled upon the invasion force and sunk it would you be happy for your opponent to make the same argument that YOUR move of sending a carrier to Wake on turn 1 was ahistoric and against the spirit of the game?

The problem with your argument that your essentially saying to your opponent that any time you take losses from anything other than historical units in a historical location at a historical time you're going to cry foul.

Consider the can of worms you're opening.

What are you going to say when the KB goes south in the 3rd week of Dec 41 to support an invasion of PM?
What about when he rolls an armoured corps into Perth......or Auckland?
More over how will you react when he turns your argument back on you? When he attacks Rangoon, for example, and finds the 18th British Div there and says "Hey, what are you doing, they are meant to be in Singapore.....you're not playing historically!!"

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 21

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 6:43:58 AM

Amoral

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline

You're mad that he used ahistoric knowledge to help him decide to screen his Wake invasion.

But you think nothing of using your ahistoric knowledge to have Lex dodge the expected KB track and go raiding to the west?

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 22

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 6:46:25 AM

morejeffs

Posts: 228
Joined: 4/24/2013
Status: online

Dobey has a legit point...to an extent...

Obviously when we say historical game (and I would agree what is permissible can easily vary even between well meaning opponents)
what happens from turn 2 will of course be different.

That said, there is a sort of a gentleman`s agreement that Japan CVs be near major allied ports (PH, Manila, Singers) for an opening attack.

Whatever the lame, pathetic excuse (covering those all important Wake landings) sticking a few CVs near Wake will be seen as CV hunting.

It clearly
puts the KB into a position to much go after the US CVs much quicker (and this is bases on the pre knowledge that Japan did not have of where those CVs were).

Of course, any fool who bumbles back to PH area after a PH KB attack is looking for trouble, but JFB who is bagging US CVs at Wake on turn 1 is CV hunting.

If both players are cool with it that is fine, but call it what it is.. CV hunting. Calling anything else...Is dishonest. (really, US CVs near Wake on turn 1...I never
would have guessed it)

At the same time, AFBs should make it clear that historicallish games (as opposed to historical games which have no real meaning as per Mr Dobeys comments)
should mean no whacking US CVs turn 1.

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 23

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 3:29:12 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3023
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

If the Japanese player is not allowed any prior knowledge, then neither should the Allied player.

Sadly, that's not how things work. Players already have the benefit of knowing that the main Japanese push will be towards Singapore, Sumatra and the DEI.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 24

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 3:54:22 PM

witpqs

Posts: 25157
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

This is what I see in the original post.

quote:

...I clearly indicated that I wanted a realistic game but would welcome non-historical concepts that are within the bounds of �realism�.

Protecting the Wake invasion could be done quite well by simply delaying it a few days.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 25

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 4:14:53 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

My opponent went to another forum and obtained opinions there (he gave me the title, something to do with Plan Orange, but I don't think it was Matrix) prior to my posting here and thus my turning to this forum. My opponent has since clarified that he asked a PM I think... but I'm still not sure. Additionally as witpqs points out above, I didn't name my opponent and certainly would never have done so. This thread was supposed to be for my edification only. To see if I was really that far off base.

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 1/6/2014 8:03:46 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 26

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 4:29:06 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

Sadly Amoral you have missed my point entirely. It has nothing to do with the Lexington's position, after all on the first turn she can move only four hexes unless under full power (which she was not), which means it goes no where of significance no matter the direction. The point I was stressing is my disbelief in the ability of the Japanese to get two CV TFs (I was originally under the impression it was only one, but my opponent corrected me here) south of Midway and well east of Wake on turn one without loosing the element of surprise for the strike on Pearl. It just seems "gamey" to me. That's all. I firmly believe my opponent didn't intend to be "gamey" in that I believe he thinks it's a legitimate move. I happen to disagree. End of story.

_____________________________

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 27

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 6:02:16 PM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1084
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

For those of us that have played both sides and know initial dispositions and ranges we all will tend to commit ahistorical or "gamey" choices. As an Allied player I expect to get hunted and run like hell!! To date I haven't got caught notwithstanding the whole KB after me for an extended period of time....probably just lucky!

The upshot is that among experienced players a very detailed opening HR is required to deal with this. For this reason I am happy these players aired the issue, BUT, having said this....what the hell difference does it make if your opponent offers a re-play of the turn! Misunderstandings happen and this is just a bloody game! Get to the re-play and forget it.

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 28

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 7:58:55 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 16944
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Too bad about the game and situation Dr. Hal.

As an AVID JFB, I never move my CVs south after Pearl. Almost always go north to refuel or simple clear the area before 'changing history' with different moves. I've always figured that this provides the Allied Player 2-3 days to move clear of the potential action. If he hasn't well then too bad for him!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to pontiouspilot)

Post #: 29

RE: Am I a Cry Baby???? - 1/6/2014 8:16:51 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

My opponent went to another forum and obtained opinions there (he gave me the title, something to do with Plan Orange, but I don't think it was Matrix) prior to my posting here and thus my turning to this forum. My opponent has since clarified that he asked a PM I think... but I'm still not sure. Additionally as witpqs points out above, I didn't name my opponent and certainly would never have done so. This thread was supposed to be for my edification only. To see if I was really that far off base.

Well, although I think I would be a little upset if I were you. If you both agreed to the non historical start and there was no clear rule about attacking the Allied carriers then I would say that you just should live with it. I really favor the historical start for this reason. I am not sure why so many players avoid it. A good Japanese player is still going to run amok even when playing the historical first day and any good Allied player is not going to lose the war due to the sinking of the POW and Repulse. And, it prevents this sort of misunderstanding. The bottom line is what do you think of your opponent? Should you end the game now if you are concerned about his style? Or is it worth playing on? It is a challenge but the loss of one carrier on the first day should not really hurt your chances of winning. If you trust your opponent then soldier on and have a good game.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 30