ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Surely it is a fact that it is far too easy to damage resource centers than IRL.
No, I don't know that that is so.
Since you said both of these things are true
Now you are just making things up.
REPLY: Unlikely. Much more likely is a miscommunication. Aside from the fact that is normal for most people, we are very good at it. I would not make something up. Neither would you. I acknowledge that - you should try to bear it in mind.
As to strategic resource bombing... I do believe that it would be possible to target attacks against resources of a military nature and that repairing them would be costly in terms of supplies redirected AND time. It is probably true that the game make the supply cost of repair too high but I would also argue the rate at which repair happens is probably incorrect also.
REPLY: Well - since it is abstract - it is hard to say. You repair up one point per day - typical of a Matrix simple algorithm. That means 365 points damage takes a year to fix. PROBABLY that is too long. But if the resource were a very unusual one - a hydroelectric dam - a point target rather than an area one - and one which EXISTS in RHS (in the form of oil) - it might take more than a year to fix. On the other hand, if you inflict a single point, it may be up in a single day, and that may be way too fast. For a simple mechanism it is probably acceptable.
I don't have a phD in industrial management and this IS meant to be a FUN game. At a certain point in time the I am willing to accept the imperfections in the game and have some fun. Worrying about exactly how resources are to be repaired if damaged etc etc etc is way past the point where I no longer find it fun to consider house rules ( something you wanted to get away from in this game).
REPLY: It is quite true - I don't like restricting players or long lists of house rules. On the other hand, I consider the primary house rule should have covered this. Same for the added rule about what is possible. But it may be that, after decades of study of every strategic bombing campaign in history, I may be assuming a general knowledge that is not in fact general. In any case - this is elegant argument on your part - citing my own principles against me!
As to your point about damaging resources by ground fighting. LOL!!! I'd love to do that BUT you forbade me from invading India proper... You ban me from invading a place and then when I come up with the idea of strategic bombing it into the stone age tell me that I should ground invade it to do the damage instead. LOL!!!!
REPLY: Ouch. Well - once again - you are being elegant. But it reveals two germane points:
1) As ususal we miscommunicated. You MISSED that I several times said "raids" were permitted.
2) You really intended to honor your agreement. Now I know this was the case anyway - from personality analysis in voice communication - but here is proof of it. Nemo is an honorable player in fact. I don't suppose it hurts to say so -
since you often feel I never have a positive opinion.
No Sid. Opinions do not substitute for facts here and at this point in time I'm quite happy that the veracity of the model is "good enough" to start a game. I'm not intereste in negotiating 50,000 painstaking house rules as, quite frankly, I am right at the cusp of no longe enjoying the prospect of this game. Now if you are unwilling to continue with a game in which the IJA engages in resource bombing then that's fine and I will step aside but, at this stage, I am highly resistant to any plans to add further house rules as I'm sick and tired of negotiating every tiny bleeding little detail. It isn't at all fun.
REPLY: Bombing of resource centers is the centerpiece of your strategy - apparently: "tiny bleeding little detail?"
I was writing on the basis you had said it was not valid - or I thought you had said so. I distinctly remember you saying something about bombing industrial centers BECAUSE bombing resources was probably unrealistic. Now perhaps that was in a context I misconstrued? On the other hand, I have undertaken not to be in the ultimatum business - which seems to upset you a good deal. I am close to despair that you will ever not think in gamey terms - but if I agreed to team with you - I guess it is my own fault - since you long made it clear you actually believe in "do whatever the system allows". I feel that this is not consistent with your "don't do the physically impossible principle" or my "don't do what real commanders would not do principle" and I believe you should reconsider your position on that basis. BUT
1) I now see you do not think whatever I read or heard meant what I thought it did - so I cannot appeal to an agreement that seems not to have been intended as a criticism of a proposal;
2) I see some sense of "the cost of repair may well be too high" -
3) I admit your point that some significant damage would indeed be possible
SO I suggest a compromise. What if you CAN bomb resources - but (within the limits of what you know) you do NOT attempt to bomb them to zero? Not sure what the target value should be - or how we might know what damage had been done - or repaired? But there is clearly a point at which one is engaged in overkill - and experience in running games on both sides for tests should allow you to estimate in the ball park. The first ball park that comes to mind is your suggestion when we first spoke: IF we disagree - we split the difference. Aim at 50%.
As to your comment in email that you control most of the SAA... Hmm, that's an army formation. Certainly you would be lent some divisions for the capture of the Phillipines but I see absolutely no need for you to keep them when they could be much more useful to us in China or speeding up the conquest of Burma.
It seems a bit strange to tell me that you control a large part of one of the three main unrestricted army formations... No, you control the invasion of the Phillipines for which I'm happy to lend you forces but to expect to take those 5 or 6 divisions elsewhere is unrealistic. In the same way as I don't expect to take over all the navy ships after they have done the job of covering my invasion convoys ( although I will be lent a few for the long term protection against British pobes) and expect to have to give most of the covering force back to your command so I expect most of the army units in the Phillipines and DEI to come back under army control once their objectives are achieved. You will be left sufficient for further offensive actions but certainly not the majority of SAA.
Anyways, let me know if my view that i'm not interested in negotiating a whole series of house rules to cover areas in which the game model may not be the best ( there are so many such areas that we could keep negotiating house rules forever under those circumstances) is unacceptable and I'll happily step aside. Maybe someone else will find enjoyment in interminable negotiations but I don't.
I'm not saying this out of rancour or upset... I'm just being very honest that a certain level of negotiation to get an agreeable game for everyone is fine but what is being indulged in now is, IMO, excessive and a real case of "perfect being the enemy of good enough". No offence Sid but one of the most important areas of any game model is internal consistency and going for perfection in one area when there are other areas of the model one could drive a good-sized bus through is, IMO, excessive.
).
