Japanese opponent wanted for scenario 16 - closed

[Bigdog128]

I am the new guy playing HB in scenario 16. I would like to play up to 2 more games, PBEM.
I am able to play 5 to 10 turns a week, possibly more if time permits on the weekend.
I would like to play as historically as possible, including any house rules that add realism and a more historical feel to the game.

Once I get a couple of games complete on #16, I will be willing to either play Japanese, or some other scenarios.

Jamie

[HansBolter]

Don't trust this guy....he's a shady character.


just kidding.


Jamie is a local boardgame buddy who is teaching me the ropes in MultiMan Publishing's Case Blue every Thursday night.

I'm returning the favor by attempting to teach him the ropes in this game as I learn them simultaneously from Todd & Ralf.

We just started the campaign scenario that starts June 1 (can't remember the scenario number) with all historical settings and me in my first role as the Japanese commander.

Jamie is a good, experienced gamer and a shrewd opponent.

[bigbaba]

welcome jamie. hopefully you enjoy your game vs. "hans san".

and hans: goooood luck as the IJN without the "midway flattops". i can imagie it it damnd hard to win without them.

would be nice to read your AAR, when your "in game action" realy starts in the south pacific.

[Bigdog128]

I got a match going with Borner, so I can take one more game if anyone is interested.

Thanks,

Jamie.

[bigbaba]

hi jamie.

i would like to play #16 against you.

i like historical games too and therefore my requested house rules are:

-no night carrier attacks.
-no "USMC" corsairs on CV. thanks @nomad for the feedback.
-no sub-invasions.
-4E bombers on at least 10.000 ft.


which house rules would you like to put in?

[Nomad]

A small clarrification, your house rule should be no Marine Corsairs on CVs. The Bunker Hill comes with a Corsair unit on it and for some reason I just had a VF on a CVE upgrade to Corsairs.

[Bigdog128]

b-17's at least 15k....historical...would hurt me...but i like historical.

what are the other 4e bombers what altitudes did they operate at historically?

no night carrier ops is good.
no sub invasions is good.
no land based planes at all on any carriers,
no marine air on carriers unless strictly being used to ferry from noumea to brisbane...or brisbane to noumea.
100% shipping for both sides.
variable reinforcements so we can't know to the exact day when things come to the other opponent.
no 20 gazillion single ship task forces in the same hex to avoid air/naval strikes
japanese sub doctrine....
fog of war...

did i leave anything out?
what do you think of these options?
oh...and did i say i want to play the allies?

Thanks for wanting to play.
reply back as to your acceptance of these options and send me a save game.
thanks,

Jamie.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Bigdog128
no land based planes at all on any carriers,
no marine air on carriers unless strictly being used to ferry from noumea to brisbane...or brisbane to noumea.

Jamie.

Jamie, the first line above is overkill for the same reason as allowing what happens in the second line. The American CVEs that arrive without air groups are only good for ferrying planes until carrier air groups from sunken fleet carriers become available. The blanket rule "no land based planes on any carriers" should be ammended to read: "no land based planes OPERATING from any carriers". It should still be OK to ferry land based planes back and forth between SWPAC and SOPAC bases with the carriers.

p.s. Since you didn't specify and stated your preference for historal settings our game has historical reinforcement arrivals with no variation.

[Bigdog128]

Well, that's what happens when you play a few games. You figure out a few things and say to yourself....next time, I want to do it this way....hence a little variability of the reinforcements to keep things a little uncertain is good, in my book. I have not tried it with variable or extremely variable....so I am not sure of the actual results in game play....I would like to hear from any others what the effects have been if they have used those options in their games....

Jamie.

[RGIJN]

Yeah, would like to read about your experiences with "variable"/"very variable" options too! Does the AI rather tend to advance or to retard the things coming thru into the theatre?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Yeah, would like to read about your experiences with "variable"/"very variable" options too! Does the AI rather tend to advance or to retard the things coming thru into the theatre?

I haven't really examined it that closely Ralf. One would have to start a game with 100% ship committment with no variability and then examine the arrival dates of every ship (which really can't be done until they are released to the theater) and for every LCU and air squadron and then compare those arrival dates to a game set up with "variable" and "very variable" settings. Quite a bookkeeping job that I have little inclination to engage in personally.

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Quite a bookkeeping job that I have little inclination to engage in personally.

why not Hans...?!?![&:] [:D][;)]

Of course my question was rather meant for a "felt trend"... I would never expect a deep analytical clarification! [;)]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Quite a bookkeeping job that I have little inclination to engage in personally.

why not Hans...?!?![&:] [:D][;)]

Of course my question was rather meant for a "felt trend"... I would never expect a deep analytical clarification! [;)]

cause I'm too darn busy juggling 4 PBEM games.....took two hours to finish one turn each in four different games last night....I must be nuts!

[bigbaba]

hi jamie.

your rules are ok to me. i send you the first savegame soon. just send me your e-mail per IN, so i can send you the turn.

[Bigdog128]

tried to email you, but it bounced. my email is bigdog128 (at) gmail (dot) com

Jamie

[Bigdog128]

OK. I have two opponents. Borner and Bigbaba have graciously offered to play me, so I am closing this offer to play scenario 16. Thank you.

Jamie.