It doesn't sound right

[mc3744]

This summer I decided to start a new campaign.

Found on the forum an opponent (definitely not a rookie) and we decided to play the May '42 campaign.
I sent him my proposal for house rules and we started the game (I still have all the emails).

We've played for a month and a half.

I had a few "doubts" after I saw the first attack on New Guinea with several hundreds planes taking off a DS.
I don't like the DS, but it works both ways (later).

Then he came to bomb Darwin with (5) BBs (and got spanked by mines and CD! [;)]). Again I'm not a fan of massing but it also works both ways.

In Burma he placed a unit section on every trail incoming from India. I can't say I love it, but .. no house rules on any of this.

Yesterday he attacked in Yenen with (I presume) only one unit (71 assault points) out of some 3.000 AV.
So I asked him why that odd attack ("I’ve seen an odd attack in Yenen, only (71) assault points !?!"). I remembered reading on the forum that it's a "trick" for something.
Anyway, whatever it's for it didn't work ... I think. And we have no house rule either.

Today I got this email back:

"I quit there is no way you changed the command of that many LRBs in china."

I assume LRB is Long Rage Bombers, since yesterday I moved (as soon as Chungking turned AS 6) the LB-30s belonging to the Southeast Asia HQ to Chungking. Together with most of my Southeast Asian bombers (some 150 LBs).
I attacked one of his airport in China, I'm guessing the outcome wasn't too good for the Japanese.

We have have the following house rules on China:

"- Chinese Command Ground Units (Allied and Japanese) cannot leave China if not reassigned to a new HQ (with PPs)
- Kwantung Command units cannot leave Manchukuo unless reassigned.
- Since we play with stock map: Chunking cannot be besieged (with stock map it’s unrealistically easy to capture Chunking – the whole of China - with Japan)"

Why shouldn't I use my SA HQ bombers in China? (Beside the shortage of suplies)
We can't take units out, not in.

I'd like to know what you guys think of it.
It doesn't sound right to me. [:-]

Thanks [&o]

Nite [:)]

[Barb]

It seems to me that what is not forbidden, than it should be allowed.
(I am also against massing. My opponent used to bomb one city in china with 200 oscars and 120+ bombers. I wrote to him that as I haven't more than 34 fighters in the china (AVG with 11 planes, ouch!) at that time, he should not commit such forces for one strike. And it helped a lot.)

[jwilkerson]

Sounds like maybe he was assuming the China house rule was "nothing in" AND "nothing out" without changing command hq.

Although I would hope a serious opponent would raise the objection and work out a solution rather than just quit.

It is impossible to forsee every situation that can occur in a game that might be objectionable. One thing I expect of my opponents is that they be reasonable and willing to negotiate if we hit a snag. And I have to say Moses fits that bill to a tea. And I think if we hit new issues we will be able to work them out. Also look at PzB/Andy and Paul/Andy AARs ... they have successfully negotiated themselves out of a number of "issues". Give and take is one of the requirements for a successful game. Perhaps your opponent will calm down and reconsider in a day or so. We invest far too much time in these games to quit without trying to work something out. And I suspect most times something can be worked out.

[m10bob]

If he worded his "quitting" they way you indicate, he is calling you a cheat.
If I were playing someone worthy, I would at least expect some kind of dialog prior to an overt accusation.
As my Brit friends might say...It is just not cricket.....

You were a gentleman in not identifying the party.

[mc3744]

His wording is exactly as posted: cut and paste [;)]
No more no less. He doesn't sign nor puts any form of salutation in his emails.

I've been playing for over three years and - as you guys say - I had to work out solutions to many "issues".
In my AARs and in several other games. Whenever I was unsure I asked this forum for an opinion: on 4Es night bombing, 59 bug, wrong landings, ... you name it.

I do have my opinions on some issues, of course. But in general I try to follow the common view.

I'm offended and upset by this behavior. It's only a game, but one I care about.

Anyway, Thanks for your feed-back. [:)]

[VSWG]

Of course he's completely unreasonable, but I'd give him another chance. Maybe he just had a bad day... If he insists: be glad that it ended early...

He doesn't sign nor puts any form of salutation in his emails.

Don't take it personal. I've learned that most non-Europeans immediately come to the point in emails - it's a culture thing. Either that, or A LOT of people have been rude to me lately... [;)]

[JeffroK]

Maybe, as the japanese player he's had his fun and doesnt want to be on the end of the same.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

He doesn't sign nor puts any form of salutation in his emails.

Don't take it personal. I've learned that most non-Europeans immediately come to the point in emails - it's a culture thing. Either that, or A LOT of people have been rude to me lately... [;)]

HI MARTIN!

I do that all the time, don't I? And no, I'm not trying to be rude... [;)]

REGARDS,
CHUCK

[VSWG]

Ow, stop yelling! [;)]

Don't worry, I've learned that lesson a while ago, during my year abroad. For a while I thought all my profs hated me... [:D] Well, maybe they did, as my emails must have sounded awfully stiff (which is, of course, just another word for 'German'). [;)]

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Maybe, as the japanese player he's had his fun and doesnt want to be on the end of the same.

It's certainly possible, but I do want to say one thing in response to this comment.

From time to time there seems to be a stereotype that many Japanese players "have their fun" and then quit. Now I've certainly seen that in some AARs and other posts. But I don't believe that's true for most WITP players. I've fortunately never had an opponent like that. I've had a few games end, but never with hard feelings.

Regardless of what side a player is playing, it's one thing to say, "You beat me. I won't enjoy this game anymore. I surrender - well played by you." It's another to suffer a loss and then say, "You gamey bastard - I quit!" I would be offended by that as I try to play a fair game. I've never played mc but from his forum posts he seems like a fair player to me.

@mc - like JW said it's impossible to foresee every situation. I'm personally not interested in playing anyone who's not willing to discuss things, compromise, etc. I try to do the same in return. Hopefully your opponent will chill out in a day or two, but if not it's probably not worth investing more effort in the game.

[Titanwarrior89]

I agree!

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Sounds like maybe he was assuming the China house rule was "nothing in" AND "nothing out" without changing command hq.

Although I would hope a serious opponent would raise the objection and work out a solution rather than just quit.

It is impossible to forsee every situation that can occur in a game that might be objectionable. One thing I expect of my opponents is that they be reasonable and willing to negotiate if we hit a snag. And I have to say Moses fits that bill to a tea. And I think if we hit new issues we will be able to work them out. Also look at PzB/Andy and Paul/Andy AARs ... they have successfully negotiated themselves out of a number of "issues". Give and take is one of the requirements for a successful game. Perhaps your opponent will calm down and reconsider in a day or so. We invest far too much time in these games to quit without trying to work something out. And I suspect most times something can be worked out.

[bbbf]

MC is a fair and honourable opponent.
 
Approachable too, sorry Max, looks like you found a dud opponent

[Yamato hugger]

Oh, Ive quit games for various reasons. 3 of them because of the disappearing units bug, a few because turns were taking longer and longer to come. I had 1 where the Jap sailed right past Singapore and started shooting up my merchies in the Indian ocean, and when I pointed out that this was generally frowned upon he agreed and 2 turns later was still chasing merchies with no intention of pulling back to where he should have been. I can say I have had more people flat quit games. Most of them being these "death star" people. As soon as their plans go south, they quit. Had 1 of these quit because I operated my PBYs from dot hexes. /shrug

Trust me, he would have quit eventually.

I play for fun. I really dont enjoy a game with people that play to win so much as those that play for the fun of it. The play to win types give up when they cant win generally. The most enjoyable game I think I have ever played I have ongoing right now. My first CHS attempt, my first 2 day turn game. We are in Sep 42 right now. I lost the Akagi off Pearl harbor in the first week of the war. The Kaga went down a month later and the Hiyo a few months after that. Right now I have 2 undamaged carriers in the entire fleet, although most of my "damaged" carriers are less than 20%. He has started some limited attacks on my fringes. For my part I just finished a major campaign against Perth and the Aleutians and my troops are resting and replacing. Havent decided if I am going to start a new push or turtle up. I have over 3 times his points, not enough for a victory on my part (I would need about 10,000 points with no losses for a win at this point), but should be enough of a lead to carry me into 45 maybe even 46. But both of us have fought pretty much the way it was really fought. Single and 2 carrier groups for the most part, and 30-60 plane raids for the most part. Not because we agreed to this, it just happened that way.

Keep playing, you will find someone worthy of you.

[Feinder]

It sounds like a fairly early game, ask for his password, somebody -might- pick it up.
 
-F-

[mc3744]

Thanks again to all of you [:)]

I feel better. [:)]

I'm betting I won't hear from him again. And anyway it doesn't strike me as the type on which to invest any more time.

The game was just a bit more than 1 month old (early June '42). Not too bad a loss. I guess I'll stick to my two long running PBEM.
I might pick up a training game on the Italian forum with some newbies. To bring some more addicted to the club [:'(]

I agree with Yamato on the Japanese feelings. I have played one single long PBEM with Japan and I can't honestly say that I'm sure I would have continued if things started going south too quickly.
Japan is psychologically more demanding.
bbbf knows exactly what I'm talking about [;)] - thanks by the way [:)][:)]

Ok, now I got to get back to my AAR [:D] ... oh yes, and to work!! [:D][:D]

[bradfordkay]

In one month of real life you guys made it to June '42??? Wow... I wish I could devote that much time to WITP.

[mc3744]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In one month of real life you guys made it to June '42??? Wow... I wish I could devote that much time to WITP.

I usually manage 1 turn/day per each game. Not always. But then on some days I manage two per game.
Hence my typical average of 1 turn/day on my yearly running games.

[mc3744]

Ups, sorry.

You meant to June from Dec.

Nope, we were playing the May campaign [:D]

[bradfordkay]

My bad... (annheuser's disease again!). Your very first post mentioned that it was the may '42 campaign. I had inconveniently forgotten that tidbit...

[mc3744]

[:D]