AAR-smalltalk corner

[Hortlund]

Hi Pauk [:)]
 
Jumper had some houserules with his previous opponent that I did not agree on. We discussed the PTs, but we are of different opinion whether that houserule should be in effect or not. Jumper thinks it should, I disagree.
 
So, when we do not agree on a houserule, the question becomes if either player feels strong enough about that houserule to kill the game for him. fortunately this question is not that important. Jumper has accepted that I use PTs in larger numbers than his and his previous opponent did, and in return I will be more flexible if he wants to add/change/remove some houserule in the future. Meanwhile, I am not using PTs in any way to exploit the game engine. I use them for base defence, never for offensive missions and I am not attempting any mid-ocean intercepts with them. I create them at a base, and then I move them to the target base. I have agreed not to use more than 6 PTs per PT-TF. This seems to work for both me and Jumper.

[jumper]

deleted - double post

[jumper]

Umm. Well you asked what HRs we had and I have passed them to you. You wrote you think they are good. So I thought it means you accepted them. You have only changed the HR regarding 4E on naval attack, but that was all. That´s why I was so surprised to find so many PTs defending your bases. Neverthless as was said this issue is hardly serious enough to kill the game. It may drive me crazy to see so many of them, but thats it. As long as they stay on defensive mission. [:)]


btw I will send you the turn today. I was too tired yesterday to play Witp. This week will be hard but from the beginning of the next week it should get to the usual frequency of at least turn/day

[Hortlund]

I should have been more clear.

I though your HR said that it was only allowed to spawn 2x6PT-TFs per base, this to avoid a situation where an allied player spawns a gazillion PT-boats as a last means of defence for a base. When you objected to my using PT boats at Russel Island, it became apparent that we had different opinions/understandings on what the HR meant. I see little logic or reason for a rule that prevents PTs from moving from its creation-base, or limits their number to never ever more than 12 in a hex.

We discussed it, but could not reach an agreement. Judging from our conversations in mail and here, we have agreed to not have a HR about the number of PTs that I can have at one of my own bases (within reason of cource). I cannot spawn them in greater numbers than 12 per base however, and I cannot use them offensively or for mid-ocean intercepts. That is my understanding of our current agreement, please let me know if you are of a different opinion.

[pauk]

[:D]

Is there anyone left who actually cares about your linguistic tricks ? This is not courtroom and you can not fool anyone...

You've been caught in lie, again. Now, you are changing your tactic, "ufff i thought it was...."..

I really really hope that you not working as a lawyer.[:)]


[:'(][:'(][:'(]


sayonara....

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: pauk


[:D]

Is there anyone left who actually cares about your linguistic tricks ? This is not courtroom and you can not fool anyone...

You've been caught in lie, again. Now, you are changing your tactic, "ufff i thought it was...."..

I really really hope that you not working as a lawyer.[:)]


[:'(][:'(][:'(]


sayonara....

Relax Pauk, its just a game, and this is just a gaming forum where most of us come to hang out and talk about the game. Your little forum-vendetta against me is of little interest to anyone really. Perhaps you could write long pm:s to me instead, to spare the rest of the forum from having to watch you stalk me in all threads, and if you pm me, I can just delete the pm:s without reading them. Win-win really, you get to complain, I wont have to read the complains, and the rest of the forum doesnt have to read them either.

Anyway, I have explained to jumper my side of the HR-discussion, the fact that you dont believe me (for whatever reason) is of no relevance whatsoever to my game with jumper. But its good to hear that you think Im good at "linguistic tricks" at least. [:)]

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I should have been more clear.

I though your HR said that it was only allowed to spawn 2x6PT-TFs per base, this to avoid a situation where an allied player spawns a gazillion PT-boats as a last means of defence for a base. When you objected to my using PT boats at Russel Island, it became apparent that we had different opinions/understandings on what the HR meant. I see little logic or reason for a rule that prevents PTs from moving from its creation-base, or limits their number to never ever more than 12 in a hex.

We discussed it, but could not reach an agreement. Judging from our conversations in mail and here, we have agreed to not have a HR about the number of PTs that I can have at one of my own bases (within reason of cource). I cannot spawn them in greater numbers than 12 per base however, and I cannot use them offensively or for mid-ocean intercepts. That is my understanding of our current agreement, please let me know if you are of a different opinion.

The original HR didn´t mean to prevent their movement from one base to another. It just limited them to be build in ports lvl 6+. I always considered strange that every small port with enough supplies can start producing them in a moment it is captured or turn some AK into floating PT factory.. It was supposed to:
a) allow allies to build their PTs in large ports at whatever amounts they wish and then distribute them at the requested places
b) limit their max numbers at those requested places and therefore their defensive potential which I consider as way overrated.
c) limit them to defensive roles only

Limit their number to 12 PT max per base (in 2 TF of 6 PTs each) is based on my experience that this amount still attrit japanes DDs but not in such ridiculous way as when I have to battle myself through 50 of them. They are too easy to replace while they kill irreplacable japanese DDs too easily.

That was the original point of the HR. Neverthless we will not agree on it so I accepted that you want a freedom in how many you will use while not using them offensively. I will just be whining from time to time in my AAR that there´s too many of them everywhere [;)][:D]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

[Zond]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I should have been more clear.

I though your HR said that it was only allowed to spawn 2x6PT-TFs per base, this to avoid a situation where an allied player spawns a gazillion PT-boats as a last means of defence for a base. When you objected to my using PT boats at Russel Island, it became apparent that we had different opinions/understandings on what the HR meant. I see little logic or reason for a rule that prevents PTs from moving from its creation-base, or limits their number to never ever more than 12 in a hex.

We discussed it, but could not reach an agreement. Judging from our conversations in mail and here, we have agreed to not have a HR about the number of PTs that I can have at one of my own bases (within reason of cource). I cannot spawn them in greater numbers than 12 per base however, and I cannot use them offensively or for mid-ocean intercepts. That is my understanding of our current agreement, please let me know if you are of a different opinion.

I should slap myself for writing this, but just couldn't resist [8|]

[FeurerKrieg]

[:D]

[bradfordkay]

This business of PT's "spawning" anywhere, as if they were being built on site is a bit silly, guys. Think of them instead as deck cargo on the TF which is delivering them, and you'll see that you really should have no problems with creating them at a forward base (other than when you forget to set the home base of the PT TF, which defaults to that of the delivering supply TF and so the PTs try to return to that far away base!).

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Zond

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I should have been more clear.

I though your HR said that it was only allowed to spawn 2x6PT-TFs per base, this to avoid a situation where an allied player spawns a gazillion PT-boats as a last means of defence for a base. When you objected to my using PT boats at Russel Island, it became apparent that we had different opinions/understandings on what the HR meant. I see little logic or reason for a rule that prevents PTs from moving from its creation-base, or limits their number to never ever more than 12 in a hex.

We discussed it, but could not reach an agreement. Judging from our conversations in mail and here, we have agreed to not have a HR about the number of PTs that I can have at one of my own bases (within reason of cource). I cannot spawn them in greater numbers than 12 per base however, and I cannot use them offensively or for mid-ocean intercepts. That is my understanding of our current agreement, please let me know if you are of a different opinion.

I should slap myself for writing this, but just couldn't resist [8|]

Zond - I think you'd better go re-read the injunction on language one more time. You are warned.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1649590

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

This business of PT's "spawning" anywhere, as if they were being built on site is a bit silly, guys. Think of them instead as deck cargo on the TF which is delivering them, and you'll see that you really should have no problems with creating them at a forward base (other than when you forget to set the home base of the PT TF, which defaults to that of the delivering supply TF and so the PTs try to return to that far away base!).

This is a good point Bradforkay, but it would require at least one transport convoy reach the base. Besides that if there is no limitation, you can use paras to grab some port base deep in enemy territory for example and if you get lucky and there is enough supplies: click-click-clik-clik-clik and you have 60 PTs there. Put all of them at one base and you can be 99% sure you will get at least 1-2 japanese DDs everytime (more if you are lucky). Have just 12 of them there and you might or might not get 1-2 japanese DDs. That was the point. Above all it has the sideeffect that if you have 50 of them in 8 separate TFs your bombardment will do nothing as most of the operational points will be spend during the night engagements even if you get through without a scratch. All these things makes PTs so damned effective that I felt it neccessary to control it somehow through HR. I´m not arguing if they were transported on deck, by plane, by submarine or by alliens. I´m arguing that what makes them so effective is the combination of high combat value and easy availibility what means also easy access to replacements. You can not change or affect their effectiveness directly (without editing the database), but you can affect their effectiveness through their availibility. Limit ports where they can be build and their numbers is the right way to go IMO. If my oponent agree or not is another issue (discussed and closed), but this is how I see it and what I follow when playing allies.

[bradfordkay]

You might note by what I wrote that I have never thought about creating PTS when a supply TF was nowhere to be found. It is now a personal rule: only create PTs from a supply TF. We already have the 6PTs per TF rule and 2 PT TFs per hex, so the other worries are covered.

[Hortlund]

For the record:
I have never created PTs at a forward base. All my PTs have been created in friendly ports and then moved to their targets.

At the moment I have 36 PTs divided into 6 PT-TFs at Thursday Island.

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You might note by what I wrote that I have never thought about creating PTS when a supply TF was nowhere to be found. It is now a personal rule: only create PTs from a supply TF. We already have the 6PTs per TF rule and 2 PT TFs per hex, so the other worries are covered.

I missunderstood your previous post. Thought you are trying to say that PTs should be allowed to be build whenever is pleased as they could be easily transpoted there by ship anyway IRL.. [;)]

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

For the record:
I have never created PTs at a forward base. All my PTs have been created in friendly ports and then moved to their targets.

At the moment I have 36 PTs divided into 6 PT-TFs at Thursday Island.

Based on my patrol planes reports I have estimated 40-80 of them there in 7-8 TFs.. [;)] I think it is safe to say that anyone who would send his precious warships to this hornets nest would be adept for psychiatric care.. [:D]

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: jumper

Based on my patrol planes reports I have estimated 40-80 of them there in 7-8 TFs.. [;)] I think it is safe to say that anyone who would send his precious warships to this hornets nest would be adept for psychiatric care.. [:D]

Recon is not always accurate, news at 11.

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: jumper

Based on my patrol planes reports I have estimated 40-80 of them there in 7-8 TFs.. [;)] I think it is safe to say that anyone who would send his precious warships to this hornets nest would be adept for psychiatric care.. [:D]

Recon is not always accurate, news at 11.

I know. That´s why I wasn´t sure if there is 40 or 80.. btw half them were indentified as CVs, CAs or BBs.. [;)] Next time my pilot will report PT as CV I will build 5 meters long flat deck and order him to land on it..

[Hortlund]

[:D]
 
Now tell me...what are you going to do with the KB? Staying in the area or going away?