All Allied Players Must Read This

[Sheytan]

I will give this a spin. Its one thing to accept playing a game with a presumptive level playing field. It is quite another to play when its fairly clear the playing field is "flawed".

Frankly I dont wish to get into a pissing contest about what is and isnt flawed, and perceptions. Let me simplify, I was a board gamer when I was ten years old. My brother dusted me playing SPI's Arab/Israeli wars. I decided I wanted some revenge so I devoted myself to reading the rules inside and out, and proceeded to feed him his posterior thereafter.

In WITP a new player frankly was meat for those that understood the nuances of things like exploiting the BB TF gimmic by replenishing at low level ports, this is no longer possible.

To conclude, I would never have issue with someone who discovered that a "game aspect" as represented was so flawed that abused could upend a game.

IF you cannot understand that, well...im too old to argue. Good luck however in your future challenge of arms.

Virtute et armis.

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

I prefer reliable players.

I have played 20 Uncommon Valor games, 5 WITP games and so far 0 AE games.

Of the 5 WITP Games, 4 of them lasted until after 1945, and I lost 3 of them as Japan late 45 due to Nukes and massive bombing over and over... ect and when approaching September +/- 1945 we agreed Japan would surrendered by now... I won 1 Game as the Allies once, and 1 Game ended as my opponent quit in mid 43.

This said, I don't claim to be any expert, nor any special in any way, just a interested and dedicated WITP player.


However, I always hate to start a game (don't misunderstand, I love the game) but I hate the fear of playing with someone I don't know, who might or might not be a reliable player... who might or might not quit... ect.. And then be dedicating a lot of time, calculations, paper charts and so on to the game without knowing if the other man stays in the game or not..

I feel I have been lucky with my opponents, but I have been a bit careful I guess about who I start a game with, and I have encouraged that we take a talk on the phone or something as the game goes on, I feel that communication is beneficial to the game, to discuss any issues or potential HR changes ect or whatever that might occur.


I just felt for presenting my perspective on things in this post I guess..



Relieble players is what I personally value the most.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

I will give this a spin. Its one thing to accept playing a game with a presumptive level playing field. It is quite another to play when its fairly clear the playing field is "flawed". To conclude, I would never have issue with someone who discovered that a "game aspect" as represented was so flawed that abused could upend a game.

I wouldn't object to "discussing" such an issue with an opponant with an eye to creating a "house rule". The original WITP certainly had a number of "abuses" that could be exploited be both sides. My only objection would be to a "unilateral" resignation without discussion. The numerous lists of "House Rules" posted in the original forum prove that compromise is possible.

[P.Hausser]

I think that communication is very important, it does not need to be regarding exploits ect, I assume most individuals don't do exploitive things.
But it can simply be regarding House Rules I.E no Strat bombing out of China (As it Historicaly was not possible due to lack of Aviationfuel)
... or No Invations of Allution Islands during the winter months... or whatever...

Point is, it does not need to be things related to exploits..


It is my opinion that good communication improves chances of a good game, a game who lasts from 7th Dec 1941 until 1946.
I'm sure many of you have played many games without it, I personally anyway value it and consider will to compromise and to communicate as important for a good game. You never know what might occur in 4 years real time ahead... so why not establish the routine (solution) already at game start.

After reading on the forums I get the impressions that many games don't make it until 45, and I think a large part of the reason is due to lack of communication or similer.

[WITPPL]

[:D]

Btw: it IS lots of fun training and realocating and making all those cunning plans for late 42 moves.

Relaxed....

[leehunt27@bloomberg.net]

I agree with Gravyhair-- sometimes Allied players risk much to gain little early in the game. No sense going "All-in" early in the tournament with a pair of 8's.

-As for playing till 1945, I would argue that most (and not all of course) games are decided by the end of 1942. Both players are jockeying for position and in my PBEM experience one side or the other is significantly stronger. At that point, how much "strategic challenge" is left in the game? If the Japanese are better off at the end of 1942 than they were historically, then the game can be quite exciting. Both sides may have their carriers left or coming as reinforcements, and you know the tension stays high. But its no fun honestly to play as the Allies and be winning by a large amount at the end of 1942, because then you are waiting for reinforcements as you essentially conduct a time consuming "mopping up" campaign. There's not much strategy left.

-Part of the issue here is regarding what I call "PBEM Fatigue": When one side is way ahead, the other sometimes get sloppy with his troops and/or sends turns back less frequently. With that in mind I usually mention to my PBEM opponents that I'll play to the end; but if the Allies are way ahead by Christmas 1942, its probably more interesting to start a new game. Also the "pen-pal" nature of the game reduces PBEM fatigue- if you enjoy who you are playing with and complimenting each other on your exploits, you may play on even though you are getting beaten up. I ended a game relatively early as the Allies once because my opponent bragged in the emails when he was winning, and sulked and complained if I scored a hit somewhere. Why should I invest hours and hours of planning and playing turns with someone like that? But I've also played with someone who is better than me but happy to both give and receive compliments and teach me as we play along. Now that game went on for years and we started another...

[Feinder]

Sorry.

Didn't read the whole thread.  I got to the part about the author congratulating himself on having several oppnenents quit on him (early).  He forgot to mention they were probably mis-matched to begin with, and he might as well been playing middle-schooler anyway.

I consider myself a capable WitP PBEM player.  But I got tired of the patronizing.

My first amusement was wonder how many PBEM games have been played in AE.

Two?  Three?  Oh, wait.  None?

But that's patronizing too.

[8|]

-F-

[crsutton]

Personally, I felt that one of the big flaws with the WITP campaign was the autovictory rule. It causes many of the Japanese players to risk everything for an early autovictory (to be fair it is tough for the Japanese to win otherwise). However, if the autovictory attempt falls short, the Japanese player is way over extended and probably going to go down big time. Some IJN players quit after missing the autovictory for this reason. Don't know if autovictory is still in AE but it should not be. The game should be based on VP alone with the Japanese winning more points for exceeding expectations and playing a good end game. The Japanese player should expect a tough go in 1945 but still should have a way to win the game.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Personally, I felt that one of the big flaws with the WITP campaign was the autovictory rule. It causes many of the Japanese players to risk everything for an early autovictory (to be fair it is tough for the Japanese to win otherwise). However, if the autovictory attempt falls short, the Japanese player is way over extended and probably going to go down big time. Some IJN players quit after missing the autovictory for this reason. Don't know if autovictory is still in AE but it should not be. The game should be based on VP alone with the Japanese winning more points for exceeding expectations and playing a good end game. The Japanese player should expect a tough go in 1945 but still should have a way to win the game.

I think the intent of autovictory was to force the Allies to fight back in 1942, instead of pulling a sir robin. Politically we could not have completely abandoned Oz and hunkered down till 43.

A different, and IMO better way to do this was found in the old Witp board game. If the Allies failed to do certain things (such as maintain a merchant ship pipeline to Oz, starting in 4/42 IIRC) or if the Japanese were able to accomplish certain things (such as establishing an LCU with a LOC beyond a certain point in india, although this also triggered additional allied reinforcements) then the war was shortened by a predetermined amount (i.e., the end date of the game pulls in). The specific triggers and pull-ins had some quirks about them, but the basic concept could be used in a game like WitpAE. For example, if a week (?) goes by without a transport unloading US supply in Oz (or without a certain amount of supply being unloaded), the end date could pull in by N days. Same thing if the Japanese took certain locations. A Sir-Robin-ish Allied player would have to trade off the military risk of contesting early with the possible benefit.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Personally, I felt that one of the big flaws with the WITP campaign was the autovictory rule. It causes many of the Japanese players to risk everything for an early autovictory (to be fair it is tough for the Japanese to win otherwise). However, if the autovictory attempt falls short, the Japanese player is way over extended and probably going to go down big time. Some IJN players quit after missing the autovictory for this reason. Don't know if autovictory is still in AE but it should not be. The game should be based on VP alone with the Japanese winning more points for exceeding expectations and playing a good end game. The Japanese player should expect a tough go in 1945 but still should have a way to win the game.

I agree. "Auto-victory" is garbage. If it's so "auto", why not play it out to the end and "prove it"? Leads to far too much "go for broke"(and quit if you don't make it) play. The only "victory" that should be available during play is "Ended by mutual consent" (and that doesn't mean one player whined and slowed play to a crawl and generally made the game a miserable experiance for everyone until he got his way).

[Mistmatz]

I wonder how many games end due to one side declaring auto-victory and quit the game while the other would like to play on. I never heard about such an occurance so I doubt it's really an issue.

I understand that many games - by mutual consent - end after autovictory is achieved and I find the reasoning behind not bad at all. On the other hand I doubt that the implementation is robust enough to suit the many different ways till autovictory and all possible situations at the time of autovictory. It's just another option for players to play with if they want, or ignore it if they want.

[ChezDaJez]

I agree with Gravyhair-- sometimes Allied players risk much to gain little early in the game. No sense going "All-in" early in the tournament with a pair of 8's.

So very true however, as a purely Japanese player, I don't mind an aggressive allied move early on when the benefit is worth the risk.

-As for playing till 1945, I would argue that most (and not all of course) games are decided by the end of 1942. Both players are jockeying for position and in my PBEM experience one side or the other is significantly stronger. At that point, how much "strategic challenge" is left in the game? If the Japanese are better off at the end of 1942 than they were historically, then the game can be quite exciting. Both sides may have their carriers left or coming as reinforcements, and you know the tension stays high. But its no fun honestly to play as the Allies and be winning by a large amount at the end of 1942, because then you are waiting for reinforcements as you essentially conduct a time consuming "mopping up" campaign. There's not much strategy left.

I agree most games are decided by the end of 1942 however, I would also argue that the game is decided on 7 Dec 41. The allies are going to win, pure and simple. A Japanese player cannot stop the allied juggernaut once it gets rolling no matter how well he plays. But the thrill is in being able to avoid the historical Japanese mistakes and make the allied player fight for every inch if he wants to win.

I play the Japanese exclusively in PBEM because I found most players want to be the allies. That's fine with me. I'm defensive minded. Once my offensive is over by mid-late 42, I'm going to hunker down and protect what I have and make it as costly for my opponent as I can. I don't play for automatic victory and I don't care about points. I know I won't win but I love it when I can provide the allied player with a very challenging and hard fought game.

-Part of the issue here is regarding what I call "PBEM Fatigue": When one side is way ahead, the other sometimes get sloppy with his troops and/or sends turns back less frequently. With that in mind I usually mention to my PBEM opponents that I'll play to the end; but if the Allies are way ahead by Christmas 1942, its probably more interesting to start a new game.

PBEM fatigue will always be a part of the game. By early 43, the Allies and the Japanese will probably have seen major naval losses. The Japanese in particular will have seen major losses to their trained aircrews even if KB is still afloat so for them it becomes a training period before the allies really start marching. The allies are still waiting for their Essex carriers and Hellcats to arrive. It can be a tedious time period, as it was IRL. I would agree though that if the Japanese Navy has been rendered hors' de combat, it would probably be best to seek another game... offered to the same opponent first!

Also the "pen-pal" nature of the game reduces PBEM fatigue- if you enjoy who you are playing with and complimenting each other on your exploits, you may play on even though you are getting beaten up. I ended a game relatively early as the Allies once because my opponent bragged in the emails when he was winning, and sulked and complained if I scored a hit somewhere. Why should I invest hours and hours of planning and playing turns with someone like that? But I've also played with someone who is better than me but happy to both give and receive compliments and teach me as we play along. Now that game went on for years and we started another...

And this, I believe, is the key. If you respect your opponent and he, you then the game can be exciting as hell. Bantering back and forth when sending turns (I said bantering, not boasting or whining) can be fun. It helps build a rapport that can overcome the occasional miscommunication that will always happen.

I am in a game with BradfordKay. We are in July 1944 and I have enjoyed every moment of the game. We decided on a long list of house rules before we started just so each of us was clear of the type of game the other expected. And we found that we are of like minds. If it even remotely smells of gamey, we won't do it. We play as close to historical as the game will allow without artificially restricting one side or the other. Most of our house rules are simply common sense and some are to cover exploits in the game. I cannot think of a single time when one of us has had to wave one of the rules to the other. We have modified them as necessary and will continue to do so as the situation requires.

I've had my successes in the game and my defeats. I have gone from the thrill of victory with KB sinking SoDak and NC on one day to the agony of defeat watching Kaga and Hiryu get pounded the next day by his CVs. I've watched my latest fighters get chewed to pieces by his P-47s day after day and I can't wait until my latest wunder aircraft arrives to return the favor (they seldom do but hey! I can dream!).

The key to a successful game is to respect one another and to be reasonably similar in skill.

If and when our game ever ends, I hope Brad wants a rematch using AE. Then I can plan on kicking his butt all the way back to the White House steps. (I had a similar plan for our current game but so far it isn't working out quite the way I wanted).

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

CHEZ.   Very well stated.  Between good players, there is as much satisfaction and enjoyment to be had from a well planned defense as a clever offense.   Hope you and Brad get to put AE "through the wringer" and have as good a time as you appear to be having now.

[bradfordkay]

Oh, he'll talk me into it... if the two of us live that long....[;)]