Ah, I'll give this all the response it deserves.
There, that should do it.[:D]
RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
man, coming from HOI2 multiplayer AARs to WitP AARs, I can say that the latter has a lot more heated discussions and pickings on the house rules. Personally, I don't find any of Nemo's actions disqualifying, and as such, I must say his plans have worked out quite nice... Though I cannot understand why Aztez hasn't moved out his air units. I would have done so after day one, seeing the MAJOR losses that the allies recieved.
With that said, the RHS mod seems to give the JAP player quite a few "bonuses" that the allied player doesn't...
Ah, well... 8 BBs, 2CVs... LOL! I think I would have asked the congress to negotiate peace. Once again, the Japanese score a major victory, just like the one against Russia, some 30+ years earlier.
With that said, the RHS mod seems to give the JAP player quite a few "bonuses" that the allied player doesn't...
Ah, well... 8 BBs, 2CVs... LOL! I think I would have asked the congress to negotiate peace. Once again, the Japanese score a major victory, just like the one against Russia, some 30+ years earlier.
Fighting for the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Oh, I am not complaining about Nemo's actions as disqualifying. Its been his complaints about others actions that have been the problem.[8D]
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Don’t have the fortitude to prove to your face you say. I notice you say prove and not comment to your face. Well here are my comments.
They were directed at Aztec and not at you, until you made your remark I had no intention of ever posting to you or in one of your threads, and exactly for the reason I state above. The only reason I am posting is to prove you wrong in your assertions of other people. .
The proof of my remarks that you are a poor sport and bad loser are in your actions in your two previous AAR’s and in the way you present yourself. Having your girlfriend look into an AAR you should not be looking into just reinforces my opinion.
Having stated my piece I wish you the best of luck and will not post in your AAR’s again, I really don’t wish to have to communicate further. We should just agree that our opinions are far to divergent to agree on anything.
ORIGINAL: walkerd
Hate to sound nasty but what did you expect the game would be like? Why on earth did you challenge Nemo when it was clearly his style of game? I am sorry to say this but it seems you jumped in over your head. Unless you play the game his way he will hand you your head on a plater.
As for quitting. Just recall his two previous games. Quit after losing his first carrier battle and blamed it on the mod. Quit his famous “anything goes” game after his opponent used his tactics back against him. He is a bad loser and poor sport. While I am of the belief people need to stand by their word, you agreed to play to the end, you could justify dropping out as Nemo does the same.
Worst case scenario find someone to continue for you.
They were directed at Aztec and not at you, until you made your remark I had no intention of ever posting to you or in one of your threads, and exactly for the reason I state above. The only reason I am posting is to prove you wrong in your assertions of other people. .
The proof of my remarks that you are a poor sport and bad loser are in your actions in your two previous AAR’s and in the way you present yourself. Having your girlfriend look into an AAR you should not be looking into just reinforces my opinion.
Having stated my piece I wish you the best of luck and will not post in your AAR’s again, I really don’t wish to have to communicate further. We should just agree that our opinions are far to divergent to agree on anything.
"Carpe diem" - Seize the day!
"Carpe Cerevisi" - Seize the beer!
"Carpe Cerevisi" - Seize the beer!
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Nemo, you’re a great read and I’m sure lurkers such as me hope you keep posting AAR.
Have you thought that a way to keep an opponent in the game might be to allow your opponent to switch sides whenever he wants? (Might not be possible.)
After his deepest despair, you could show how he could’ve won. When the consensus is you’re going to win, you can’t lose.
Have you thought that a way to keep an opponent in the game might be to allow your opponent to switch sides whenever he wants? (Might not be possible.)
After his deepest despair, you could show how he could’ve won. When the consensus is you’re going to win, you can’t lose.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Lurker101,
Actually that thought did cross my mind... Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that anyone who was playing as the Allies and then was doing so badly in early 42 that they wanted to play as the Japanese would, very quickly, find Allied LBA and general quantitative superiority to be so large that they would either:
1. want to institute all manner of house rules to prevent forces being used to their full capabilities under either the remit of a) historical fidelity ( there were rarely, if ever, multi-hundred plane raids in the Pacific Theatre in 42/43/44 so they should be "banned" in-game or b) certain actions being "unfair" ( insofar as they tend to label things which, through a combination or poor play and lack of resources, they cannot prevent as being unfair).
2. want to swap back to the Allies once they realised that the Japanese were NOT all-powerful and they were getting their head handed to them by Allied forces from mid-42 onwards ( which is eminently possible).
So, it would be an interesting thing but would only be possible if a total ban on new house rules with the swap and a limit of 1 swap per game were instituted. In any case I think any Allied player in RHS EOS who wants to swap to play as the Japanese after the first week or month is in for a rude shock. Suffice it to say that I believe Aztez's assessment of force correlation and capabilities was influenced far more by his emotional reaction to his early losses than any real objective assessment of in-game facts.
I've been on record here many times as decrying all the subjectivity which people let creep into their assessments of their own and their opponent's capabilities. What one wants is completely irrelevant. What one ( or one's opponent) has the capability of doing is the only important limiter on intentions. So I've reviewed the RHS forces with objectivity uppermost in my mind prior to making my strategic plan for Japan in RHS EOS and I can tell you right now that Russia, China, Australia and Alaska are MORE difficult for Japan to invade succesfully in RHS than in stock. In addition the strategy of invading northern Oz and cutting it off from the rest out of LBA range from other Oz bases is NOT tenable in RHS and so removes much of the benefit from the "northern Oz invasion variant". It is possible to invade India succesfully BUT the window of opportunity closes two months earlier than in stock and therefore, IMO, it is not possible to invade India without foregoing one or more of the major objectives in the DEI/Phillipines area. I chose to forego the Phillipines.
Obviously after the first week went well the Allies wanted to change our clear pre-game agreements that "only Aden is off-limits" to invasion and add a raft of other administrative limiters on Japanese expansion but I think those limiters mostly arise de novo from actual force correlations in-game. IOW with even half-decent play against an average opponent the Allied player should have little difficult holding onto India and Oz and China IMO ( I'll obviously do my best to take them ( or at least 2 out of 3) but they are definitely holdable.) and shouldn't have to rely on an administrative ruling to hold them for him. He can hold them if he fights hard and smart... e.g. I have another RHS EOS game going on in which, at the end of the first week, I've suffered almost triple the shipping losses, inflicted only 2/3rds of the shipping losses on the enemy and am losing more planes at a lower exchange ratio than in the game this AAR reflected so, as I've said, if the Allied opponent fights hard and smart none of these administrative limitations on capability need apply. They arise through the losses inflicted on the Japanese and the limitation on capabilities these losses create.
My "solution" was that I was lucky enough to find an opponent who contacted me while reading this AAR to basically tell me that he thought it was very strange and ill-advised to administratively limit a force's capabilities instead of forcing the player to fight to limit them. After all it is a wargame in which one defends things by engaging in warfare. If it was a game in which one could defend an area by publishing a fiat mid-game to ban an enemy from attacking it we'd all be playing something called "Administrative Protection Order Generator" or somesuch BS 
... That's not to say that my opponent didn't want some house rules ( banning the Johore turn 1 landing as he felt it would violate surprise... fair enough but do bear in mind that in the game this AAR referred to I specifically asked for and got permission to use the turn 1 move bonus to "land just north of Singapore" so in this game the Johore landing was agreed to by my opponent as far as I'm concerned...) and I also sent him my list of turn 1 targets so he could pre-approve them. When he objected to a landing I removed it. So I think it REALLY comes down to just finding an opponent who shares the same philosophy as you ( no one philosophy is right or wrong) BUT, and this is important, also someone who won't want to start changing the rules you've agreed on mid-game when things are going badly. There will always be a need to clarify situations which aren't covered in the rules ( and hopefully that can be done... in another of my game's it wasn't possible because my opponent didn't agree moving fixed fortresses etc from the US constituted a breach of our rule that we would abide by newtonian physics etc... on this we differ and it caused a lot of ire on both sides... I think more on his than mine judging by his post here but that's life for you.) but I think you need to find someone who views the game the same way you do and then commit to not re-negotiating pre-game rules mid-game BUT being open to negotiate things which weren't covered in the pre-game rules on a 50/50 basis ( by which I mean that the agreement u come to should please and displease both parties equally).
As to AARs... I won't be doing another AAR like this after my experiences here. EVERY time I've done an AAR from the Japanese perspective I've been jumped all over and labelled a cheater etc etc. Who needs that in their life? If people here are intolerant enough that they can't just live and let live but are so neanderthalic in their attitudes that they must attack "the different" then I'll leave them to their Middle Ages mindset and let them find some other witch to burn ( every time I see this sort of thing on the internet I am reminded of the famous jailer/prisoner experiments at Stanford and how close to the surface intolerance and the need to label and be aggressive towards "the different" is. Sadly we haven't evolved beyond this tribalism and instinctual violence towards "the different" yet. ). Hell in this game I clearly asked about landing north of Singapore and the only player who broke a pre-game rule was Aztez who on THREE separate days moved units into Johore Bahru to cancel my movement orders ( which was something we had agreed not to do as it exploited the banning of Shock Attacks). Yet who gets labelled a cheater and who doesn't hear a peep about what he is doing? Correct, the guy playing as the Japs gets called a cheater, the Allied player hears nothing.
I was interested to see that no matter what I did in my game as the Allies ( which was played with the exact same philosophy as when I play as the Japanese) no-one said a thing... I think that's a really interesting bias and there is a psychology study in there for anyone who is interested in it although it has been studied in non-internet environments.
Thanks for the post though. I may be posting some sort of monthly summary of an RHS game purely so people can get an idea of how it differs from stock but that won't be an AAR.
Actually that thought did cross my mind... Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that anyone who was playing as the Allies and then was doing so badly in early 42 that they wanted to play as the Japanese would, very quickly, find Allied LBA and general quantitative superiority to be so large that they would either:
1. want to institute all manner of house rules to prevent forces being used to their full capabilities under either the remit of a) historical fidelity ( there were rarely, if ever, multi-hundred plane raids in the Pacific Theatre in 42/43/44 so they should be "banned" in-game or b) certain actions being "unfair" ( insofar as they tend to label things which, through a combination or poor play and lack of resources, they cannot prevent as being unfair).
2. want to swap back to the Allies once they realised that the Japanese were NOT all-powerful and they were getting their head handed to them by Allied forces from mid-42 onwards ( which is eminently possible).
So, it would be an interesting thing but would only be possible if a total ban on new house rules with the swap and a limit of 1 swap per game were instituted. In any case I think any Allied player in RHS EOS who wants to swap to play as the Japanese after the first week or month is in for a rude shock. Suffice it to say that I believe Aztez's assessment of force correlation and capabilities was influenced far more by his emotional reaction to his early losses than any real objective assessment of in-game facts.
I've been on record here many times as decrying all the subjectivity which people let creep into their assessments of their own and their opponent's capabilities. What one wants is completely irrelevant. What one ( or one's opponent) has the capability of doing is the only important limiter on intentions. So I've reviewed the RHS forces with objectivity uppermost in my mind prior to making my strategic plan for Japan in RHS EOS and I can tell you right now that Russia, China, Australia and Alaska are MORE difficult for Japan to invade succesfully in RHS than in stock. In addition the strategy of invading northern Oz and cutting it off from the rest out of LBA range from other Oz bases is NOT tenable in RHS and so removes much of the benefit from the "northern Oz invasion variant". It is possible to invade India succesfully BUT the window of opportunity closes two months earlier than in stock and therefore, IMO, it is not possible to invade India without foregoing one or more of the major objectives in the DEI/Phillipines area. I chose to forego the Phillipines.
Obviously after the first week went well the Allies wanted to change our clear pre-game agreements that "only Aden is off-limits" to invasion and add a raft of other administrative limiters on Japanese expansion but I think those limiters mostly arise de novo from actual force correlations in-game. IOW with even half-decent play against an average opponent the Allied player should have little difficult holding onto India and Oz and China IMO ( I'll obviously do my best to take them ( or at least 2 out of 3) but they are definitely holdable.) and shouldn't have to rely on an administrative ruling to hold them for him. He can hold them if he fights hard and smart... e.g. I have another RHS EOS game going on in which, at the end of the first week, I've suffered almost triple the shipping losses, inflicted only 2/3rds of the shipping losses on the enemy and am losing more planes at a lower exchange ratio than in the game this AAR reflected so, as I've said, if the Allied opponent fights hard and smart none of these administrative limitations on capability need apply. They arise through the losses inflicted on the Japanese and the limitation on capabilities these losses create.
My "solution" was that I was lucky enough to find an opponent who contacted me while reading this AAR to basically tell me that he thought it was very strange and ill-advised to administratively limit a force's capabilities instead of forcing the player to fight to limit them. After all it is a wargame in which one defends things by engaging in warfare. If it was a game in which one could defend an area by publishing a fiat mid-game to ban an enemy from attacking it we'd all be playing something called "Administrative Protection Order Generator" or somesuch BS
... That's not to say that my opponent didn't want some house rules ( banning the Johore turn 1 landing as he felt it would violate surprise... fair enough but do bear in mind that in the game this AAR referred to I specifically asked for and got permission to use the turn 1 move bonus to "land just north of Singapore" so in this game the Johore landing was agreed to by my opponent as far as I'm concerned...) and I also sent him my list of turn 1 targets so he could pre-approve them. When he objected to a landing I removed it. So I think it REALLY comes down to just finding an opponent who shares the same philosophy as you ( no one philosophy is right or wrong) BUT, and this is important, also someone who won't want to start changing the rules you've agreed on mid-game when things are going badly. There will always be a need to clarify situations which aren't covered in the rules ( and hopefully that can be done... in another of my game's it wasn't possible because my opponent didn't agree moving fixed fortresses etc from the US constituted a breach of our rule that we would abide by newtonian physics etc... on this we differ and it caused a lot of ire on both sides... I think more on his than mine judging by his post here but that's life for you.) but I think you need to find someone who views the game the same way you do and then commit to not re-negotiating pre-game rules mid-game BUT being open to negotiate things which weren't covered in the pre-game rules on a 50/50 basis ( by which I mean that the agreement u come to should please and displease both parties equally).
As to AARs... I won't be doing another AAR like this after my experiences here. EVERY time I've done an AAR from the Japanese perspective I've been jumped all over and labelled a cheater etc etc. Who needs that in their life? If people here are intolerant enough that they can't just live and let live but are so neanderthalic in their attitudes that they must attack "the different" then I'll leave them to their Middle Ages mindset and let them find some other witch to burn ( every time I see this sort of thing on the internet I am reminded of the famous jailer/prisoner experiments at Stanford and how close to the surface intolerance and the need to label and be aggressive towards "the different" is. Sadly we haven't evolved beyond this tribalism and instinctual violence towards "the different" yet. ). Hell in this game I clearly asked about landing north of Singapore and the only player who broke a pre-game rule was Aztez who on THREE separate days moved units into Johore Bahru to cancel my movement orders ( which was something we had agreed not to do as it exploited the banning of Shock Attacks). Yet who gets labelled a cheater and who doesn't hear a peep about what he is doing? Correct, the guy playing as the Japs gets called a cheater, the Allied player hears nothing.
I was interested to see that no matter what I did in my game as the Allies ( which was played with the exact same philosophy as when I play as the Japanese) no-one said a thing... I think that's a really interesting bias and there is a psychology study in there for anyone who is interested in it although it has been studied in non-internet environments.
Thanks for the post though. I may be posting some sort of monthly summary of an RHS game purely so people can get an idea of how it differs from stock but that won't be an AAR.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Hmpf. Again you are calling me a cheater and a lousy player. Grow up Nemo.
It was not the start of the game losses than cancelled this game. No. It was much more than that.
We had general discussion early on which I stated clearly that I was looking for an semi-historical game. Your views of what semi-historical are quite extreme to say at the least.
Also it is funny that you are calling someone a cheat when in your lunacy games (which had no rules) you called your opponent a cheat when he was reinforcing the Karachi via Political points. That is also somewhat amusing... Isn't it?
Than when a guy who knows about the game (Mogami) tells you that this intended way game works you say that it cannot be so.
You also cancelled one game when your CV's got toasted early and call it a flaw in the game mechanics.
So get off your high horse Nemo and cut the bs.
It was not the start of the game losses than cancelled this game. No. It was much more than that.
We had general discussion early on which I stated clearly that I was looking for an semi-historical game. Your views of what semi-historical are quite extreme to say at the least.
Also it is funny that you are calling someone a cheat when in your lunacy games (which had no rules) you called your opponent a cheat when he was reinforcing the Karachi via Political points. That is also somewhat amusing... Isn't it?
Than when a guy who knows about the game (Mogami) tells you that this intended way game works you say that it cannot be so.
You also cancelled one game when your CV's got toasted early and call it a flaw in the game mechanics.
So get off your high horse Nemo and cut the bs.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
So, it would be an interesting thing but would only be possible if a total ban on new house rules with the swap and a limit of 1 swap per game were instituted.
That’s what I meant (children, this is what happens when you drink and click).
Such a rule would go a long way towards addressing many of the issues raised...
...and much more interesting (to me, anyway) would add a whole new level to your maskirovka strategy, and to the strategy of a skilled opponent (you’d have to post the emails exchanged...).
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
As to AARs... I won't be doing another AAR like this after my experiences here. EVERY time I've done an AAR from the Japanese perspective I've been jumped all over and labelled a cheater etc etc. Who needs that in their life? .
Well, I hope you change your mind (especially re the Japanese perspective). I find your AARs very entertaining, thought-provoking, and educational, and it’ll be a loss to the site if you stop writing them.
Good luck
-
Rob Brennan UK
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
- Location: London UK
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Nemo .. I hope you enjoy your new game and your opponent does too as in the end thats what really matters. IF i had time and an inclination to be battered in 42( Also i have aztez as my next opponent should i want to try out Japan). I'd be up for a game sometime but no AAR as you said for the obvious reasons. And Johore Baru invasion turn 1 is a no-no in my book [;)]. "just North of Singapore" is a bit too vague [:D].
Frnakly your 'surround PH' startegy may well become common for really agressive japanese players so imo you have made some very valuable contributions to this forum and also provided some good reading with the AAR , I for one do like your writing style.
Good luck with whatever you do. and say hello to tokyo jane [;)]Or more likely Dublin Esmeralda [;)]
Frnakly your 'surround PH' startegy may well become common for really agressive japanese players so imo you have made some very valuable contributions to this forum and also provided some good reading with the AAR , I for one do like your writing style.
Good luck with whatever you do. and say hello to tokyo jane [;)]Or more likely Dublin Esmeralda [;)]
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit 
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
BUT, and this is important, also someone who won't want to start changing the rules you've agreed on mid-game when things are going badly. There will always be a need to clarify situations which aren't covered in the rules ( and hopefully that can be done... in another of my game's it wasn't possible because my opponent didn't agree moving fixed fortresses etc from the US constituted a breach of our rule that we would abide by newtonian physics etc... on this we differ and it caused a lot of ire on both sides...
Wow- Talk about the pot and kettle.[8|]
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Hi, I don't think moving the guns violates Newtonian physicis. I mean the guns are no longer there in reality. They have been moved. In WITP while the guns were being removed from USA postions for them are being prepared. And once they relocate in order to be used they must again become static.
It is good to experiment. Also I think the more experianced players should just let the new players figure it out on their own. (better then them thinking we are picking on them)
The most important thing is to have fun. It does not matter who agrees or disagrees (other then your opponent)
It is good to experiment. Also I think the more experianced players should just let the new players figure it out on their own. (better then them thinking we are picking on them)
The most important thing is to have fun. It does not matter who agrees or disagrees (other then your opponent)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Was away for a day so only just checked this thread again. I'll deal with the posts in order:
1. Aztez,
A. I listed the issue of the exploitation of movement into a hex to cancel movement orders only because it was an example of how inconsistent standards are applied by people on this forum to similar situations when the sides and players vary. Consistency is the hallmark of fairness, inconsistency isn't.
B. I have said publicly in this very thread that while it DID breach our pre-game agreements I figured it cancelled out any bonus I got from landing at Johore Bahru ( which you objected to after the fact) since it takes 2 days to march from Mersing and you exploited this issue to stop my movements for three days. Since it cancelled it out I figured we were even so I didn't make a big deal of it at the time.
C. We had a clear pre-game agreement that in return for banning Shock Attack + Pursue that you would not take advantage and move units into hexes just to cancel movement orders. You broke this pre-game agreement by moving units ( including on one day just a base force) into Johore Bahru purely to cancel movement orders. After the first day I asked you not to do it again. You agreed not to in email to me. Then it happened again on the 2nd day. After the 2nd day I told you that if it happened again I would shock attack + pursue in order to stop it happening a fourth time. On the third day it happened again so on the fourth day I Shock Attacked + Pursued to prevent it happening on a 5th, 6th and further days.
Those are the facts of the issue. There was an agreement not to do this. In email you admitted you were doing this at Johore and you did this on 3 separate days. Those are facts. You can engage in wordplay as much as you want Aztez but those are the facts. Am I bothered overly by it? No, as I said it gained you 3 days and so, IMO, fully compensated you for me landing at Johore instead of Mersing ( which most people seem to figure is a no-no) so I figured that given that most people thought the Johore landing was questionable that this compensated for it ( also don't forget that I had a standing offer that I would redo turn 1 if any landings occurred which you objected to... I heard nothing about the objections to the landing at Johore Bahru until several days into the game. If you had said it to me after turn 1 I would have honoured my undertaking to redo the turn 1 without that landing... Hell, in my current game when I listed turn 1 Johore Bahru as a possibility my opponent stated that he didn't think this was viable so I stopped the invasion fleet just off Mersing ( which is acceptable as a turn 1 landing) and then ran into Johore to land there on Day 2. ). So, I don't really see how I can be fairer than that.
Now, since you chose to make an issue of it I invite you to do the following:
i) prove that what I've said above is not true, that we did not have such an agreement and that you did not break it ( the combat report txts do, BTW, show Japanese units attacking Allied units moving into Johore Bahru from the hex just north of it for several days running so this is factual proof of what I've said) and
ii) point out ANY pre-game rule we agreed to which I broke. Now, operating to the maximum leeway of a rule isn't breaking it so, for example, you agreed to me landing "just north of Singapore" and I took that to mean Johore and Mersing were both fine. I think this is an eminently reasonable interpretation of your agreement. If you had said "you can't land at Johore" I'd have just stationed my ships at Mersing and then run into Johore on Day 2 as I did when my next opponent objected. So, point out ANY point in our game where we agreed A or B and I broke that clear pre-game rule please.
I freely admit to operating to the maximum extent of my forces' capabilities and I would never deny that if anyone asked and if that means flying a plane to 12 hexes cause the game says I can while some players think it might only have flown to 10 then that's what I'll do (unless I AGREE a house rule to only fly it 10) or if that means bypassing the Phillipines even if my opponent never considered that possible and is thus blind-sided, then that's what I'll do or if that means getting as much benefit from the turn 1 bonus within the parameters my opponent agrees to then that's what I'll do BUT if my opponent and I agree to a specific limit then I'll NEVER breach that. It is not, however, my problem if you agree to a game with me, after reading my AARs and thus knowing full well what you are getting yourself into in terms of my play style, get slaughtered and then decide it isn't the sort of game you want to play. Fine, I'll respect your decision not to continue the game and I'll respect the fact that you want to play a different style of game BUT to try to make out like I've been unfair to you is, IMO, inconsistent with the objective reality of the situation.
And do I think the fact that you lost 160+ ships in 8 days including, basically, the entire US Pacific Fleet had anything to do with the fact that after 1 week of play you represented me with an ultimatum of areas I was not allowed to invade etc etc ( which we had previously agreed were open for invasion if I could manage a succesful invasion). Obviously it did. It would be strange and unbelievable to assert that the game situation had nothing to do with your wish to renegotiate what I was and was not allowed to do.
D. Yes, your idea of what is semi-historical and mine are very different. You want areas ruled off limits by a stroke of the pen. I think that if you want something to be beyond my reach then you need to commit the men and material to make it impregnable. But seriously, you've read my AARs you knew what type of game I play and I specifically agreed with you, before the game, that ONLY Aden would be off-limits... After agreeing that I don't see how you can be surprised by the fact that I was going to try to take India. Hell, we discussed before the game started what impact the Soviet activation on 1st January 1943 would have on my need to invade India quickly so after pre-game discussions of an Indian invasion and an agreement that all of India was a viable target ( only Aden safe from invasion) I just don't see how you can have been surprised that that was my goal. Our entire pre-game negotiation about the Soviet Union was predicated on the fact that I was allowing the Soviets to attack me on 1st January 43 in return for the ability to knock the Indians ( and mostly the Ozzies) out of the game prior to that time. I would have to be stupid to agree to the Soviets being allowed to initiate attacks in 1943 while, at the same time, agreeing to leave India and Australia as active theatres.
E. Lunacy games... You consistently say they had no rules. This is incorrect. They did have rules, no air-mining, no sub invasions, no exploiting of clear bugs, no breaches of newtonian physics, no uncounterable/uninterceptible actions ( this was the rule under which air-mining was banned) etc. There were FEW rules but there were rules. Two of the rules were that there should be no breaches of Newtonian Physics or uncounterable actions. Teleporting immobile, hundred-thousand ton+ fortresses from the American West Coast into a besieged city in India instantaneously is, IMO, a fairly clear breach of Newtonian physics and represents something which is uninterceptible. As such I consider it a major breach of the rules we agreed on. My opponent in that game doesn't. I respect his right to have a different interpretation and while he does seem to bear a bit of a personal grudge over this ( as can be seen by his recent posting) the way I view it is that, VERY UNFORTUNATELY, we had different ideas, weren't able to reconcile them mid-game and the whole thing ended up in a very messy, regrettable situation. When push comes to shove he was a PBEM opponent and not a dear friend or a work colleague or anything like that and that sort of relationship is, realistically speaking, insignificant enough that I'm not going to raise my diastolic blood pressure 1mm of mercury over it. I'm certainly not going to bother harbouring a grudge against someone I'll never meet. That's ridiculous and is the sort of thing that gets people referred to me . How you or my previous opponent choose to proceed with what is, when viewed in the context of the issues of real life, a completely insignificant issue is your own business.
F. Ah my game against Przemcio... Yeah, I got spanked in that game when Allied airplanes hit Japanese carriers with 19 times more bombs and torpedoes per strike plane sortied than the elite Japanese pilots could manage. If I remember correctly some 34 or 35 US planes scored 5 times more hits on the Japanese carriers than about 140 Japanese Vals and Kates did on the American fleet. Do I have a problem with Przemcio's play? Nope. Does it mean I have a problem with the Nikmod version under which that result was achieved? Absolutely. I conducted tests and published the results on the forum. These showed that the effects of FlaK on planes flying naval strikes caused excessive disruption to low-durability planes ( such as the Japanese fly) such that their attacks ( while many planes leaked) resulted in very few hits and a massive underperformance relative to historical norms. (I set up a Coral Sea engagement in order to test this IIRC.)
I note that several of the changes in the newer Nikmod versions have actually, independently, corrected the modelling of naval AAA vs naval strikes such that the effect of naval AAA on these strikes is MUCH less than it was under the mod in question. So, if complaining about the AAA effect being too large vs low durability planes ( in terms of disruption) when the mod author ends up reducing the AAA effect later on is unreasonable then, yeah, call me unreasonable. I do, however, think you should post less emotionally and with more factuality. I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out. At the time Przemcio tried to convince me to continue but I was so disgusted at the outcome of the battle ( and what it boded for in later years) that I resigned. I was pretty unhappy with the veracity of the model. I do think I probably bitched at Przemcio too much for asserting it was a reasonable result but, like, I said, I was pissed off. Still, he didn't deserve to be bawled out for arguing it was reasonable ( even though I still disagree that it was a reasonable result). So, for bitching at him I'm sorry ( we all make mistakes and I'm far from immune on this score) but for bitching at the mod and the result I'm not. I think recent changes to the mod have borne out my complaints.
Rob,
Ah well so long as you agree that you know what you're letting yourself in for I would be delighted to play you. As to playing a 1941 scenario... No need. I have absolutely no desire to be told I'm cheating again for operating the Japanese to their full capabilities and winning victories.. OTOH I've been harrassing the RHS people to make a 1943 or 1944 scenario and would love to play that . I'd like to play as Japan since I always prefer to play the underdogs ( which is what Japan is even in the 41 scenario despite what people tend to spout... looking at dominance over 6 months to 1 year in a roughly 50 month game is likely to lead to quite erroneous analysis and is not in keeping with the objective reality of the entire situation. People who look at just 41/42 when determining dominance are akin to the fighter pilot whose eyes never leave the his instruments. They have lost all situational awareness and without SA and a knowledge of context one makes mistakes) PLUS so long as the Japanese don't win anything ( massively unlikely in 43/44 I don't think forum dwellers are going to bitch about them being operated to their full capabilities so that is also a factor.
So, if you ever feel like pitting the might of the Allies against a "backs against the wall" Japan in 43 ( RHS or CHS or somesuch as the uebercap just ruins the game in stock IMO, especially in 44/45 as one can see with PzB) then drop me a line. I'm all about the challenge and don't give a toss about the ephemeries of "winning" or losing so a 43 game would be interesting.
As far as Johore Bahru goes... Well, in my game against Aztez he did have a standing offer that I'd redo my turn 1 to remove any landings he objected to after viewing the turn. He didn't object to any at that time. I think my offer was pretty fair. I've learnt though and in my new game I gave my opponent approval of all my targets before even sending Turn 1 so when he objected to two of them I removed them from my planning. I think that's pretty fair but I'm sure Aztez and a few others will, undoubtedly, find something therein which proves I'm a "bad, bad man". Emotionality ruling objectivity again, a pet hate of mine.
As to the other point. I'll defo say hi to her. She will definitely remember your name.
itsjustme,
We have very different views on this issue. I disagree with yours but respect the fact that you honestly arrived at them. Its a pity you are unwilling to do the same but, when push comes to shove, it is your blood pressure and if you choose to hold a grudge its your loss.
Mogami,
Aye I see your point and while I would agree one can argue for it being reasonable I think that much of the rationale for that argument goes out the window when we are talking about a besieged city... and yes I'm aware we differ on what "besieged" means in WiTP. Still, I think that Karachi is an obvious outlier. it simply does not behave as Manilla, Singapore or other cities on the map behave when "besieged" and that led to this issue arising as a problem. That's why i am so much in favour of the Aden solution. Let everything arrive at Aden and give the Allied player the trivial issue of shipping it to Karachi in return for avoiding the whole Karachi clusterf*ck which we've seen happening when India is invaded.
Sure, Aden has to be ruled off limits by house rules but since it is out of fighter and bomber range that's an easy enough rule to agree to.
1. Aztez,
A. I listed the issue of the exploitation of movement into a hex to cancel movement orders only because it was an example of how inconsistent standards are applied by people on this forum to similar situations when the sides and players vary. Consistency is the hallmark of fairness, inconsistency isn't.
B. I have said publicly in this very thread that while it DID breach our pre-game agreements I figured it cancelled out any bonus I got from landing at Johore Bahru ( which you objected to after the fact) since it takes 2 days to march from Mersing and you exploited this issue to stop my movements for three days. Since it cancelled it out I figured we were even so I didn't make a big deal of it at the time.
C. We had a clear pre-game agreement that in return for banning Shock Attack + Pursue that you would not take advantage and move units into hexes just to cancel movement orders. You broke this pre-game agreement by moving units ( including on one day just a base force) into Johore Bahru purely to cancel movement orders. After the first day I asked you not to do it again. You agreed not to in email to me. Then it happened again on the 2nd day. After the 2nd day I told you that if it happened again I would shock attack + pursue in order to stop it happening a fourth time. On the third day it happened again so on the fourth day I Shock Attacked + Pursued to prevent it happening on a 5th, 6th and further days.
Those are the facts of the issue. There was an agreement not to do this. In email you admitted you were doing this at Johore and you did this on 3 separate days. Those are facts. You can engage in wordplay as much as you want Aztez but those are the facts. Am I bothered overly by it? No, as I said it gained you 3 days and so, IMO, fully compensated you for me landing at Johore instead of Mersing ( which most people seem to figure is a no-no) so I figured that given that most people thought the Johore landing was questionable that this compensated for it ( also don't forget that I had a standing offer that I would redo turn 1 if any landings occurred which you objected to... I heard nothing about the objections to the landing at Johore Bahru until several days into the game. If you had said it to me after turn 1 I would have honoured my undertaking to redo the turn 1 without that landing... Hell, in my current game when I listed turn 1 Johore Bahru as a possibility my opponent stated that he didn't think this was viable so I stopped the invasion fleet just off Mersing ( which is acceptable as a turn 1 landing) and then ran into Johore to land there on Day 2. ). So, I don't really see how I can be fairer than that.
Now, since you chose to make an issue of it I invite you to do the following:
i) prove that what I've said above is not true, that we did not have such an agreement and that you did not break it ( the combat report txts do, BTW, show Japanese units attacking Allied units moving into Johore Bahru from the hex just north of it for several days running so this is factual proof of what I've said) and
ii) point out ANY pre-game rule we agreed to which I broke. Now, operating to the maximum leeway of a rule isn't breaking it so, for example, you agreed to me landing "just north of Singapore" and I took that to mean Johore and Mersing were both fine. I think this is an eminently reasonable interpretation of your agreement. If you had said "you can't land at Johore" I'd have just stationed my ships at Mersing and then run into Johore on Day 2 as I did when my next opponent objected. So, point out ANY point in our game where we agreed A or B and I broke that clear pre-game rule please.
I freely admit to operating to the maximum extent of my forces' capabilities and I would never deny that if anyone asked and if that means flying a plane to 12 hexes cause the game says I can while some players think it might only have flown to 10 then that's what I'll do (unless I AGREE a house rule to only fly it 10) or if that means bypassing the Phillipines even if my opponent never considered that possible and is thus blind-sided, then that's what I'll do or if that means getting as much benefit from the turn 1 bonus within the parameters my opponent agrees to then that's what I'll do BUT if my opponent and I agree to a specific limit then I'll NEVER breach that. It is not, however, my problem if you agree to a game with me, after reading my AARs and thus knowing full well what you are getting yourself into in terms of my play style, get slaughtered and then decide it isn't the sort of game you want to play. Fine, I'll respect your decision not to continue the game and I'll respect the fact that you want to play a different style of game BUT to try to make out like I've been unfair to you is, IMO, inconsistent with the objective reality of the situation.
And do I think the fact that you lost 160+ ships in 8 days including, basically, the entire US Pacific Fleet had anything to do with the fact that after 1 week of play you represented me with an ultimatum of areas I was not allowed to invade etc etc ( which we had previously agreed were open for invasion if I could manage a succesful invasion). Obviously it did. It would be strange and unbelievable to assert that the game situation had nothing to do with your wish to renegotiate what I was and was not allowed to do.
D. Yes, your idea of what is semi-historical and mine are very different. You want areas ruled off limits by a stroke of the pen. I think that if you want something to be beyond my reach then you need to commit the men and material to make it impregnable. But seriously, you've read my AARs you knew what type of game I play and I specifically agreed with you, before the game, that ONLY Aden would be off-limits... After agreeing that I don't see how you can be surprised by the fact that I was going to try to take India. Hell, we discussed before the game started what impact the Soviet activation on 1st January 1943 would have on my need to invade India quickly so after pre-game discussions of an Indian invasion and an agreement that all of India was a viable target ( only Aden safe from invasion) I just don't see how you can have been surprised that that was my goal. Our entire pre-game negotiation about the Soviet Union was predicated on the fact that I was allowing the Soviets to attack me on 1st January 43 in return for the ability to knock the Indians ( and mostly the Ozzies) out of the game prior to that time. I would have to be stupid to agree to the Soviets being allowed to initiate attacks in 1943 while, at the same time, agreeing to leave India and Australia as active theatres.
E. Lunacy games... You consistently say they had no rules. This is incorrect. They did have rules, no air-mining, no sub invasions, no exploiting of clear bugs, no breaches of newtonian physics, no uncounterable/uninterceptible actions ( this was the rule under which air-mining was banned) etc. There were FEW rules but there were rules. Two of the rules were that there should be no breaches of Newtonian Physics or uncounterable actions. Teleporting immobile, hundred-thousand ton+ fortresses from the American West Coast into a besieged city in India instantaneously is, IMO, a fairly clear breach of Newtonian physics and represents something which is uninterceptible. As such I consider it a major breach of the rules we agreed on. My opponent in that game doesn't. I respect his right to have a different interpretation and while he does seem to bear a bit of a personal grudge over this ( as can be seen by his recent posting) the way I view it is that, VERY UNFORTUNATELY, we had different ideas, weren't able to reconcile them mid-game and the whole thing ended up in a very messy, regrettable situation. When push comes to shove he was a PBEM opponent and not a dear friend or a work colleague or anything like that and that sort of relationship is, realistically speaking, insignificant enough that I'm not going to raise my diastolic blood pressure 1mm of mercury over it. I'm certainly not going to bother harbouring a grudge against someone I'll never meet
. That's ridiculous and is the sort of thing that gets people referred to me . How you or my previous opponent choose to proceed with what is, when viewed in the context of the issues of real life, a completely insignificant issue is your own business.F. Ah my game against Przemcio... Yeah, I got spanked in that game when Allied airplanes hit Japanese carriers with 19 times more bombs and torpedoes per strike plane sortied than the elite Japanese pilots could manage. If I remember correctly some 34 or 35 US planes scored 5 times more hits on the Japanese carriers than about 140 Japanese Vals and Kates did on the American fleet. Do I have a problem with Przemcio's play? Nope. Does it mean I have a problem with the Nikmod version under which that result was achieved? Absolutely. I conducted tests and published the results on the forum. These showed that the effects of FlaK on planes flying naval strikes caused excessive disruption to low-durability planes ( such as the Japanese fly) such that their attacks ( while many planes leaked) resulted in very few hits and a massive underperformance relative to historical norms. (I set up a Coral Sea engagement in order to test this IIRC.)
I note that several of the changes in the newer Nikmod versions have actually, independently, corrected the modelling of naval AAA vs naval strikes such that the effect of naval AAA on these strikes is MUCH less than it was under the mod in question. So, if complaining about the AAA effect being too large vs low durability planes ( in terms of disruption) when the mod author ends up reducing the AAA effect later on is unreasonable then, yeah, call me unreasonable. I do, however, think you should post less emotionally and with more factuality. I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out. At the time Przemcio tried to convince me to continue but I was so disgusted at the outcome of the battle ( and what it boded for in later years) that I resigned. I was pretty unhappy with the veracity of the model. I do think I probably bitched at Przemcio too much for asserting it was a reasonable result but, like, I said, I was pissed off. Still, he didn't deserve to be bawled out for arguing it was reasonable ( even though I still disagree that it was a reasonable result). So, for bitching at him I'm sorry ( we all make mistakes and I'm far from immune on this score) but for bitching at the mod and the result I'm not. I think recent changes to the mod have borne out my complaints.
Rob,
Ah well so long as you agree that you know what you're letting yourself in for I would be delighted to play you. As to playing a 1941 scenario... No need. I have absolutely no desire to be told I'm cheating again for operating the Japanese to their full capabilities and winning victories.. OTOH I've been harrassing the RHS people to make a 1943 or 1944 scenario and would love to play that . I'd like to play as Japan since I always prefer to play the underdogs ( which is what Japan is even in the 41 scenario despite what people tend to spout... looking at dominance over 6 months to 1 year in a roughly 50 month game is likely to lead to quite erroneous analysis and is not in keeping with the objective reality of the entire situation. People who look at just 41/42 when determining dominance are akin to the fighter pilot whose eyes never leave the his instruments. They have lost all situational awareness and without SA and a knowledge of context one makes mistakes) PLUS so long as the Japanese don't win anything ( massively unlikely in 43/44 I don't think forum dwellers are going to bitch about them being operated to their full capabilities so that is also a factor.
So, if you ever feel like pitting the might of the Allies against a "backs against the wall" Japan in 43 ( RHS or CHS or somesuch as the uebercap just ruins the game in stock IMO, especially in 44/45 as one can see with PzB) then drop me a line. I'm all about the challenge and don't give a toss about the ephemeries of "winning" or losing so a 43 game would be interesting.
As far as Johore Bahru goes... Well, in my game against Aztez he did have a standing offer that I'd redo my turn 1 to remove any landings he objected to after viewing the turn. He didn't object to any at that time. I think my offer was pretty fair. I've learnt though and in my new game I gave my opponent approval of all my targets before even sending Turn 1 so when he objected to two of them I removed them from my planning. I think that's pretty fair but I'm sure Aztez and a few others will, undoubtedly, find something therein which proves I'm a "bad, bad man"
. Emotionality ruling objectivity again, a pet hate of mine.As to the other point. I'll defo say hi to her. She will definitely remember your name.
itsjustme,
We have very different views on this issue. I disagree with yours but respect the fact that you honestly arrived at them. Its a pity you are unwilling to do the same but, when push comes to shove, it is your blood pressure and if you choose to hold a grudge its your loss.
Mogami,
Aye I see your point and while I would agree one can argue for it being reasonable I think that much of the rationale for that argument goes out the window when we are talking about a besieged city... and yes I'm aware we differ on what "besieged" means in WiTP. Still, I think that Karachi is an obvious outlier. it simply does not behave as Manilla, Singapore or other cities on the map behave when "besieged" and that led to this issue arising as a problem. That's why i am so much in favour of the Aden solution. Let everything arrive at Aden and give the Allied player the trivial issue of shipping it to Karachi in return for avoiding the whole Karachi clusterf*ck which we've seen happening when India is invaded.
Sure, Aden has to be ruled off limits by house rules but since it is out of fighter and bomber range that's an easy enough rule to agree to.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
No grudge (and real life serves to elevate my blood pressure, this is just a game), just irritation that I wasted so long on a game in which you had advanced farther and with more success than 99.9% than any other player and when I am in the process of playing by the rules which you suggested and agreed to to achieve a halt to your expansion you insist on a change to the rules. Just don't like the slant that puts you in the right when its clear that you got frustrated that things weren't going your way with the rules and exploits you agreed to.
Your continuing ranting about newtonian physics is growing old when you didn't abide by them at the start and even note in your AAR that teleporting units around the map is perfectly acceptable.
The Lunacy game is ongoing and my opponent is making progress at Karachi (albeit at a cost), but its ashame you couldn't finish what you started. Besides, he's still got 30 days till the big guns from the west coast show up.
Your continuing ranting about newtonian physics is growing old when you didn't abide by them at the start and even note in your AAR that teleporting units around the map is perfectly acceptable.
The Lunacy game is ongoing and my opponent is making progress at Karachi (albeit at a cost), but its ashame you couldn't finish what you started. Besides, he's still got 30 days till the big guns from the west coast show up.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
Ah and as for the strategy of isolating Pearl Harbour ( which is strategy talk and the sort of thing I wish we could keep these AAR threads to):
Yeah it seems to be pretty succesful. My new opponent is making much more of a fight of things and in the current game I've lost roughly triple the shipping (a large portion of this being AMCs) as I decided that in order to vary things up a bit ( I used 95% of the same setup as in my game vs Aztez) that I'd actually just bypass Johnston and Midway and land forces under the cover of my CVs and the fast transport groups which accomplished the landing at Palmyra.
So I landed, initially, at Kona and should take Lahaina on about the 18 or 19th December 41 by land assault. I've also taken 1 of the Size 3 ports ( I made an error in not taking one initially and that has cost me 3 or 4 damaged ships around Hawaii) and 2 of the other islands. In short order only PH and the unoccupied base south of it ( which will be used for training purposes for the air garrisons of Hawaii) will remain. I've got 100 Zeroes, over 100 Betty and Nell torpedo bombers and am shifting my Sallys over via the land bridge of occupied islands ( I've just taken Midway and Johnston in order to facilitate this land bridge). Between them these planes should destroy whatever tried to flee PH and destroy whatever stays. I will then land my divisions ( only a small force, 4 or 5 divisions in size) sometime in early 42 and take PH at quite a low cost...
I wanted to try this because I read Admiral Laurent's invasion of PH and thought it was far too bloody to be judged truly effective and robbed his force of much of the strength it needed to push through other invasions in the Pacific and Australia/India areas. So, after a bit of thought I fastened on the "isolate it and then land on the cheap" strategy as being the most force-efficient way to take PH. The only serious force-committment will be KB x 2 weeks and 6 BBs, again x 2 weeks... although, to be fair, 4 of the BBs were bombarding Wake, Midway, Johnston etc for the first week and so are only joining up with the PH forces on Day 10 ( just in time to replace the initially committed surface groups 2 BBs, 2 CAs, 3 CLs, about 15 DDs and 8 AMCs which have almost all been rendered combat ineffective ( 1 BB & 3 DDs are still in fighting shape) by the vicious night-time surface battles. We've had BB vs BB battles, BB vs DDs, PTs vs BB etc several nights running in the waters around PH.
Still, the total isolation of PH ( which will be complete within the week) will have ended up costing me 11 vessels ( 6 AMCs, 2 DDs and 3 merchants). All in all the Allied BB, CA and CL losses alone add up to more than that, nevermind the improved strategic position so I think this strategy ( with FT TFs sprinting in to FFS etc on turn 1 from KB's starting positions and transports, supply convoys and AO convoys moving in more slowly from farther north) is proving quite efficient and might be something other players might incorporate into their gameplan.
Obviously some will raise the issue of what will happen if the Allies run reinforcement and resupply convoys in under CV cover... My response is simple, 100 Zeroes + 100 Nells and Bettys + 200 to 300 Sallys will happen. In fact I WANT the Allies to try to reinforce PH. Operating within range of LBA is suicidal in RHS. I've just lost a CVE today in my first probe of the Indian defences. I had 4 x CVEs and only managed to turn back 4 of the attacking planes with my CAP. Quite fun even though it will cost me a CVE...
The nice thing is that under RHS I, essentially,don't go within LBA range of any Allied bases unless I have the full strength of KB with me. It is just too damned risky and I think the fact that that feeling is missing from stock is a real shame.
Yeah it seems to be pretty succesful. My new opponent is making much more of a fight of things and in the current game I've lost roughly triple the shipping (a large portion of this being AMCs) as I decided that in order to vary things up a bit ( I used 95% of the same setup as in my game vs Aztez) that I'd actually just bypass Johnston and Midway and land forces under the cover of my CVs and the fast transport groups which accomplished the landing at Palmyra.
So I landed, initially, at Kona and should take Lahaina on about the 18 or 19th December 41 by land assault. I've also taken 1 of the Size 3 ports ( I made an error in not taking one initially and that has cost me 3 or 4 damaged ships around Hawaii) and 2 of the other islands. In short order only PH and the unoccupied base south of it ( which will be used for training purposes for the air garrisons of Hawaii) will remain. I've got 100 Zeroes, over 100 Betty and Nell torpedo bombers and am shifting my Sallys over via the land bridge of occupied islands ( I've just taken Midway and Johnston in order to facilitate this land bridge). Between them these planes should destroy whatever tried to flee PH and destroy whatever stays. I will then land my divisions ( only a small force, 4 or 5 divisions in size) sometime in early 42 and take PH at quite a low cost...
I wanted to try this because I read Admiral Laurent's invasion of PH and thought it was far too bloody to be judged truly effective and robbed his force of much of the strength it needed to push through other invasions in the Pacific and Australia/India areas. So, after a bit of thought I fastened on the "isolate it and then land on the cheap" strategy as being the most force-efficient way to take PH. The only serious force-committment will be KB x 2 weeks and 6 BBs, again x 2 weeks... although, to be fair, 4 of the BBs were bombarding Wake, Midway, Johnston etc for the first week and so are only joining up with the PH forces on Day 10 ( just in time to replace the initially committed surface groups 2 BBs, 2 CAs, 3 CLs, about 15 DDs and 8 AMCs which have almost all been rendered combat ineffective ( 1 BB & 3 DDs are still in fighting shape) by the vicious night-time surface battles. We've had BB vs BB battles, BB vs DDs, PTs vs BB etc several nights running in the waters around PH.
Still, the total isolation of PH ( which will be complete within the week) will have ended up costing me 11 vessels ( 6 AMCs, 2 DDs and 3 merchants). All in all the Allied BB, CA and CL losses alone add up to more than that, nevermind the improved strategic position so I think this strategy ( with FT TFs sprinting in to FFS etc on turn 1 from KB's starting positions and transports, supply convoys and AO convoys moving in more slowly from farther north) is proving quite efficient and might be something other players might incorporate into their gameplan.
Obviously some will raise the issue of what will happen if the Allies run reinforcement and resupply convoys in under CV cover... My response is simple, 100 Zeroes + 100 Nells and Bettys + 200 to 300 Sallys will happen. In fact I WANT the Allies to try to reinforce PH. Operating within range of LBA is suicidal in RHS. I've just lost a CVE today in my first probe of the Indian defences. I had 4 x CVEs and only managed to turn back 4 of the attacking planes with my CAP. Quite fun even though it will cost me a CVE...
The nice thing is that under RHS I, essentially,don't go within LBA range of any Allied bases unless I have the full strength of KB with me. It is just too damned risky and I think the fact that that feeling is missing from stock is a real shame.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
itsjustme,
Teleporting around the map IS fine... just not into besieged cities in an uninterceptible way ( remember the ban on uninterceptible moves we agreed to before the game which banned aerial mining but which we both agreed would apply to other uninterceptible situations as they arose... well, it applies here since massive troop movements into a port city under siege would have to be either by land, sea or air... all of which are subject to interdiction in reality. The teleportation into besieged cities is not subject to interdiction and is thus, by our pre-game agreement, outlawed ). I have been consistent about this when asked that specific question even if I can't be expected to put every caveat down every time I mention teleporting.
As to me getting frustrated at things not going my way. Not at all. Logically the deal you offered for a hold in place till 10/43 was very favourable to me and the strategic situation was vastly more favourable to me than for most players at the same gametime. Even if I'd taken your 10/43 deal I had more than enough force to take Pearl Harbour, NZ and Australia and render the situation at Karachi pretty much moot ( since I could have invested 5 divisions into holding you in that urban hex and done the job pretty much forever) before moving on to attack the Soviet Union in early 43. And if there is one thing anyone here ( even those who intensely dislike me) would have to admit it is that I DO do rational, objective assessment of capabilities and don't let emotions interfere with the objective reality of the strategic situation so if I say that the above was possible given the game situation then that's my assessment of the objective reality of the situation. HOWEVER the reason I didn't want to play you with said teleportation into besieged cities going on had nothing to do with the objective reality of the strategic situation. It had to do with the fact that when it came to choosing between using an uninterceptible teleportation into a besieged city ( which I consider to have been clearly banned) and choosing on not using it you chose to use it and, IMO, broke our pre-game rules.
As to the thing about turn 1 not abiding by newtonian physics... We clearly agreed, pre-game to excuse the turn 1 teleport from that rule. it is there in my AAR so if you're going to prosecute your grudge I'll thank you to, at the very least, avoid statements which are plainly factually incorrect. There's more than enough grey areas where you can cast aspersions on me over how I interpreted a grey area without having to go and make shit up.
Now, at least I am willing to accept that you arrived at your position honestly. You are the individual who keeps on posting in various threads maligning the other person involved and casting aspersions on their motivations, personality etc. I've always gone out of my way to draw a clear distinction between how I viewed your in-game actions ( which I feel clearly broke the rules we agreed to) AND the fact that I believed you arrived at them in good conscience. It is a pity you are unable to make the same distinction between decisions and the possibility of reasonable motivations behind those decisions but that blinkeredness is, in the final reckoning, your problem and not mine.
As to you not bearing a grudge... LOL!!! Just look at your posts. If they're not evidence that you haven't moved on and gotten over it then I don't know what is. Just saying something doesn't make it so.
As to the game continuing... I wish you and your opponent a good game. So long as you and he see eye to eye then I hope it goes well for you.
Teleporting around the map IS fine... just not into besieged cities in an uninterceptible way ( remember the ban on uninterceptible moves we agreed to before the game which banned aerial mining but which we both agreed would apply to other uninterceptible situations as they arose... well, it applies here since massive troop movements into a port city under siege would have to be either by land, sea or air... all of which are subject to interdiction in reality. The teleportation into besieged cities is not subject to interdiction and is thus, by our pre-game agreement, outlawed ). I have been consistent about this when asked that specific question even if I can't be expected to put every caveat down every time I mention teleporting.
As to me getting frustrated at things not going my way. Not at all. Logically the deal you offered for a hold in place till 10/43 was very favourable to me and the strategic situation was vastly more favourable to me than for most players at the same gametime. Even if I'd taken your 10/43 deal I had more than enough force to take Pearl Harbour, NZ and Australia and render the situation at Karachi pretty much moot ( since I could have invested 5 divisions into holding you in that urban hex and done the job pretty much forever) before moving on to attack the Soviet Union in early 43. And if there is one thing anyone here ( even those who intensely dislike me) would have to admit it is that I DO do rational, objective assessment of capabilities and don't let emotions interfere with the objective reality of the strategic situation so if I say that the above was possible given the game situation then that's my assessment of the objective reality of the situation. HOWEVER the reason I didn't want to play you with said teleportation into besieged cities going on had nothing to do with the objective reality of the strategic situation. It had to do with the fact that when it came to choosing between using an uninterceptible teleportation into a besieged city ( which I consider to have been clearly banned) and choosing on not using it you chose to use it and, IMO, broke our pre-game rules.
As to the thing about turn 1 not abiding by newtonian physics... We clearly agreed, pre-game to excuse the turn 1 teleport from that rule. it is there in my AAR so if you're going to prosecute your grudge I'll thank you to, at the very least, avoid statements which are plainly factually incorrect. There's more than enough grey areas where you can cast aspersions on me over how I interpreted a grey area without having to go and make shit up.
Now, at least I am willing to accept that you arrived at your position honestly. You are the individual who keeps on posting in various threads maligning the other person involved and casting aspersions on their motivations, personality etc. I've always gone out of my way to draw a clear distinction between how I viewed your in-game actions ( which I feel clearly broke the rules we agreed to) AND the fact that I believed you arrived at them in good conscience. It is a pity you are unable to make the same distinction between decisions and the possibility of reasonable motivations behind those decisions but that blinkeredness is, in the final reckoning, your problem and not mine.
As to you not bearing a grudge... LOL!!! Just look at your posts. If they're not evidence that you haven't moved on and gotten over it then I don't know what is. Just saying something doesn't make it so.
As to the game continuing... I wish you and your opponent a good game. So long as you and he see eye to eye then I hope it goes well for you.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
My post in this thread was in response to your comments above. Seems to me that you keep bringing our game and the circumstances surrounding it into your discussions.
I don't think I ever agreed that the teleportation on turn 1 was an exception to any rule. I agreed to an anything goes game with some rules that you put in place.
I don't think I ever agreed that the teleportation on turn 1 was an exception to any rule. I agreed to an anything goes game with some rules that you put in place.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
As to AARs... I won't be doing another AAR like this after my experiences here. EVERY time I've done an AAR from the Japanese perspective I've been jumped all over and labelled a cheater etc etc. Who needs that in their life?
Too bad, it was always an interesting read.
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
[>:][>:][>:][>:][>:] <- Nemo! That is the only reply you deserve since I have already explained to you everything before.
You just can't get over somethings. The only reason why I responded here was the fact that you pretty much "insulted" me.
I'am actually sick and tired of bullshit and crap. If you are going around insulting people than that is your business. Just remember that "what goes around, comes around"
Btw, It is also somewhat "iffy" thing to have your GF read othersides AAR's. Unless that GF is yourself... I mean you being a doctor and all [;)]
Have a nice life Nemo. I will not read what you post in your threads anymore since that is definately not worth it.
You just can't get over somethings. The only reason why I responded here was the fact that you pretty much "insulted" me.
I'am actually sick and tired of bullshit and crap. If you are going around insulting people than that is your business. Just remember that "what goes around, comes around"
Btw, It is also somewhat "iffy" thing to have your GF read othersides AAR's. Unless that GF is yourself... I mean you being a doctor and all [;)]
Have a nice life Nemo. I will not read what you post in your threads anymore since that is definately not worth it.
-
goodboyladdie
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:35 pm
- Location: Rendlesham, Suffolk
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
It's a shame this AAR came to such an acrimonious end. I was enjoying it and learned a lot. I believe a valuable counter to any over-reality turn 1 moves by the Jap player would be to have no surprise and allow turn 1 defensive posture changes by the Allied player. The British knew that the Japs were at sea and heading for Northern Malaya after all, but didn't do enough about it until too late. If any invasion happens anywhere south of Kuantan or south of the North Coast of Borneo, I think that surprise should be lost. Any first turn moves on the Hawaiian, Line Islands or Suva/Noumea would attract a similar penalty. The KB and it's air component would get pretty chewed up if all fighters and bombers were ready for it (and B-17s can fly to Hawaii from the US on turn 1), even with the zero bonus. All of the PI (except the west coast and Jolo), Menado, Kendari, Amboina, Sorong, New Britain and the east coast of PNG I would also consider as reasonable turn 1 targets that would not trigger the loss of surprise penalty.
As for transferring large fixed forts, I have to say I agree with Nemo. It was a major engineering undertaking to build these forts and it took a great deal of time in reality. Any other LCUs are acceptable.
As for transferring large fixed forts, I have to say I agree with Nemo. It was a major engineering undertaking to build these forts and it took a great deal of time in reality. Any other LCUs are acceptable.
Art by the amazing Dixie
RE: RHS EOS Nemo (J) vs Aztez (A). Not for Aztez.
I bitched about naval AAA causing too much disruption and recently the amount of disruption naval AAA causes has been toned down if i read the FAQs correctly so while I certainly don't claim to have been "right" in detail I think my ballpark complaint has been borne out
The recent Nikmod change had nothing to do with bomber disruption and accuracy.