Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

[USSAmerica]

The Rules of Engagement have been settled. Operational planning has begun on the part of the Japanese. The Allies, AW1Steve and USS America are both having more rum punch.

Starting with patch level 1.0.4.1106g - Jul 6 2010. Possibly waiting for DB patch, if avail within 2 weeks.

Scenario 1 is what we are playing.

Game settings:

Realism Options:
FOW on
Adv Weather on
Allied DC on
PDU on
12/7/41 Surprise on.
Reliable USN torps OFF
Real RnD on
No Withdrawals OFF
Reinforcements for both sides Fixed.
Hist Turn 1 OFF

Game Options:
CR's on
Auto Subs off
TF and plane radius on
Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off.
2 day turns.

Preferences:
Show combat animations, summaries, and show clouds all on.


House Rules:

1. Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for any purposes to max 4 hexes from the Thai border. Same for Indian troops within 4 hexes of Indian border. Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 against targets in China.

3. Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf: "Simply: no fighter sweeps higher then the ALT with the second best MVR value" He later states that there is no need to limit CAP "target" or "patrol" altitude for various reasons.

4. Turn 1 & 2: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created anywhere except Manila. Manila is limited to having 50% of each ship type in port ordered to sea. Not "keep 10 PT's in port and ship out 10 DD's". Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). Japan will not hunt down US CV TF's on turn 1 & 2.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.

Clarification on the intent of this one: The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.

Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question. CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.

Hey, Steve, after I finish this next drink, what do you say we think about making some plans? [:D]

[Chickenboy]

Here's what I had for the HRs (modified to suit current 'patch' numbers):

Patch IV AE: EDIT

Scenario 1
PDU on
non-historical turn
Japanese surprise on
TWO day turns EDIT
USN historical (read: defective) torpedoes
+/- 15 day historical ship arrival
Advanced weather effects

HRs:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: I'm going to allow myself to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Steve will have the same option for the (foreign) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China.

3. Reasonable altitude settings for a/c to avoid "Stratosphere sweep" phenomena. In general, I'll rarely fly Oscars or Zeroes higher than 25,000 feet, Nates will be restricted to 15,000 feet. Hurricanes will be OK to the higher altitude, whilest P39s and P40s will be restricted to 15,000 feet and 20,000 feet, respectively.

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.

Not many house rules, really. We tend to play a 'gentleman's game'-if something is irreversably borked, we agree to change the gameplay. Not afraid of house rules as a patch in the interim.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Hi guys. Just wanted to get this started as a place holder so we can start working on the Rules of Engagement.

CB had a list of HR's that he and Steve started with in their previous game that I think would be a fine starting point for HR negotiations. CB, if you could post them here, that would be great. As far as I'm concerned, any and all HR's are re-negotiable after the game is underway if the situation calls for it. I can play with a long list of them, or none. I just need any we use to be in writing so I can refer to the list and not screw up while playing. [:D]

For game options, I REALLY want to use 2 day turns. If you guys are dead set against it, that's fine, but I think we can all easily adjust to using them in very few turns.

I know nothing about the Japanese OOB for land, sea, or air. I know they get more toys than we do at the start, and we get more toys than them later. I'd like to use Fixed Reinforcements, so arriving task groups don't have escorts scattered over a 1 or 2 month period.

I think everyone would be able to work with starting the game with all replacements and expansions off. Pretty much SOP these days.

I'll suggest the following, but can accept any option for them:
Realism Options:
FOW, Adv Weather, Allied DC, PDU, Hist Turn 1, 12/7/41 Surprise ... all on.
Reliable USN torps OFF, Real RnD on, No Withdrawals OFF, replacements for both Fixed.

Hist Turn 1 OFF is very common, and I'm fine with that, too. We can work out any restrictions for orders on Turn 1.

Game Options:
CR's on, Auto Subs off, TF and plane radius on, Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off. 2 day turns.

Preferences:
I believe the only one's that are not completely independent for each of us are Show combat animations, summaries, and show clouds. I'd prefer to have them all on.

Scenario 1 is what I presume we are playing. I know Steve has a lot more actual playing experience than I do, so you Bad Guys really shouldn't need the extra goodies in Scenario 2. [:D]

For now, the only other thing I'd like to bring up for discussion is the possibility of a Database patch being released. I've heard rumors of such, and seen hints, but don't know how soon it might be. I know plenty of corrections have been made over the last year since release. Picking this up could be worth waiting a short while for, since it will only take effect with new starts. Any code patches, like fixing the Attack Bombers, have never in the past and should not require a restart. We can pick up any of them as we go. So, my question is, should we consider holding off on the actual start of the game until the Db update is released, depending on timeframe of course?

I'll shut up and listen now. [:D]

Please and thank you! (trying to get into the spirit of animus necessary for customary disemboweling of one's opponents.) [:'(]

There's nothing that you've said here that's a show-stopper for me, Mike.

I say start without the DB update, but am flexible either way. No sense putting off auto-victory any longer than Mynok and I need to. We should have auto-victory stitched up nicely by the time the patch comes out anyways. [:'(]

[USSAmerica]

That settles the question of the DB update quite nicely.  [:D]

Sounds good to me.  I'll take my lumps without the update. 

[Mynok]

I would prefer to wait for the update as it will take me some time to get a handle on things for the first turn. I'll go ahead and start working on it in the meantime, so that when it does arrive, it will be a simple matter to replay my orders into a new game.

This assumes that the DB patch is truly close at hand. If we are talking a month away, then let's go ahead an start. If it is in the next week or two, lets wait.

I've never played 2 day turns, but I'm sure I'll adjust...hopefully without having to learn any lessons the hard way.

[USSAmerica]

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.  2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America

Hi guys. Just wanted to get this started as a place holder so we can start working on the Rules of Engagement.

CB had a list of HR's that he and Steve started with in their previous game that I think would be a fine starting point for HR negotiations. CB, if you could post them here, that would be great. As far as I'm concerned, any and all HR's are re-negotiable after the game is underway if the situation calls for it. I can play with a long list of them, or none. I just need any we use to be in writing so I can refer to the list and not screw up while playing. [:D]

For game options, I REALLY want to use 2 day turns. If you guys are dead set against it, that's fine, but I think we can all easily adjust to using them in very few turns.

I know nothing about the Japanese OOB for land, sea, or air. I know they get more toys than we do at the start, and we get more toys than them later. I'd like to use Fixed Reinforcements, so arriving task groups don't have escorts scattered over a 1 or 2 month period.

I think everyone would be able to work with starting the game with all replacements and expansions off. Pretty much SOP these days.

I'll suggest the following, but can accept any option for them:
Realism Options:
FOW, Adv Weather, Allied DC, PDU, Hist Turn 1, 12/7/41 Surprise ... all on.
Reliable USN torps OFF, Real RnD on, No Withdrawals OFF, replacements for both Fixed.

Hist Turn 1 OFF is very common, and I'm fine with that, too. We can work out any restrictions for orders on Turn 1.

Game Options:
CR's on, Auto Subs off, TF and plane radius on, Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off. 2 day turns.

Preferences:
I believe the only one's that are not completely independent for each of us are Show combat animations, summaries, and show clouds. I'd prefer to have them all on.

Scenario 1 is what I presume we are playing. I know Steve has a lot more actual playing experience than I do, so you Bad Guys really shouldn't need the extra goodies in Scenario 2. [:D]

For now, the only other thing I'd like to bring up for discussion is the possibility of a Database patch being released. I've heard rumors of such, and seen hints, but don't know how soon it might be. I know plenty of corrections have been made over the last year since release. Picking this up could be worth waiting a short while for, since it will only take effect with new starts. Any code patches, like fixing the Attack Bombers, have never in the past and should not require a restart. We can pick up any of them as we go. So, my question is, should we consider holding off on the actual start of the game until the Db update is released, depending on timeframe of course?

I'll shut up and listen now. [:D]

Please and thank you! (trying to get into the spirit of animus necessary for customary disemboweling of one's opponents.) [:'(]

There's nothing that you've said here that's a show-stopper for me, Mike.

I say start without the DB update, but am flexible either way. No sense putting off auto-victory any longer than Mynok and I need to. We should have auto-victory stitched up nicely by the time the patch comes out anyways. [:'(]

I absolutely hate them all! [:@] So when do we start? [:D] (I just had to say that as a matter of principal, in keeping with my house-rule hating tradition![:D]).

[AW1Steve]

Full disclosure, I'm going to be on the road for the last week of this month. (See "Travel" thread).

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.  2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Did you promise a good bottle of single malt? [&:][:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.  2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Did you promise a good bottle of single malt? [&:][:D]

Steve has made a good point, although not in the way he intended...[:'(]

Amongst ourselves, shall we have a payoff bet of sorts? The (within reason) beverage of choice option for the 'winners' sounds nice. How shall we define this? Are the others interested in this?

[USSAmerica]

Andre, can I ask you for a little bit of clarification on some of these? Questions in bold...

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

HRs:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: I'm going to allow myself to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Steve will have the same option for the (foreign) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP. So for instance, Indian troops assigned to the restricted Indian commands could march to places in Burma without paying PP, but no farther?

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China. Does this include no strategic bombing FROM China to other bases outside China in 1943?

3. Reasonable altitude settings for a/c to avoid "Stratosphere sweep" phenomena. In general, I'll rarely fly Oscars or Zeroes higher than 25,000 feet, Nates will be restricted to 15,000 feet. Hurricanes will be OK to the higher altitude, whilest P39s and P40s will be restricted to 15,000 feet and 20,000 feet, respectively. I'm cool with some rule to govern this, but I don't know enough about the different types of AC to know what's "reasonable" for them, other than P39's had very poor higher altitude performance. Can I request we come up with some "hard" numbers, even if there are a few listed exceptions, so I can just refer to my list before blowing this one out my rear end through ignorance? [:D] Also, would this just govern Sweep missions or others as well?

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units. I have not messed around with this function at all. What type of limitations are we talking about here?

Not many house rules, really. We tend to play a 'gentleman's game'-if something is irreversably borked, we agree to change the gameplay. Not afraid of house rules as a patch in the interim. [/i]

I'm always flexible with just about any HR's. I just need to know for sure what I can and can't do. [:)]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Full disclosure, I'm going to be on the road for the last week of this month. (See "Travel" thread).

One of the beauties of having a partner. [;)]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've sent a PM to see if I can get a "less than / greater than" 2 weeks ETA for the DB patch.  2 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Did you promise a good bottle of single malt? [&:][:D]

Steve has made a good point, although not in the way he intended...[:'(]

Amongst ourselves, shall we have a payoff bet of sorts? The (within reason) beverage of choice option for the 'winners' sounds nice. How shall we define this? Are the others interested in this?

I'm game. It's been a long time since I looked at or cared about the victory conditions in game. Since I still am one of those kooks who think of this as a game, I'd be willing to use those as a measuring stick to see who gets the next round.

[scott64]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Andre, can I ask you for a little bit of clarification on some of these? Questions in bold...

HRs:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: I'm going to allow myself to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Steve will have the same option for the (foreign) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP. So for instance, Indian troops assigned to the restricted Indian commands could march to places in Burma without paying PP, but no farther?

I've thought it within reason for the RTA to assist in the liberation of Pegu and, argueably Rangoon. I could see an argument for the Indian restricted troops used in a reverse operation, provided that their use was limited to within 4 hexes march (therefore, no Ceylon) of the Burmese / Indian border. That's my take.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China. Does this include no strategic bombing FROM China to other bases outside China in 1943?

I don't see why you couldn't bomb other countries outside of China from China in 1943...

3. Reasonable altitude settings for a/c to avoid "Stratosphere sweep" phenomena. In general, I'll rarely fly Oscars or Zeroes higher than 25,000 feet, Nates will be restricted to 15,000 feet. Hurricanes will be OK to the higher altitude, whilest P39s and P40s will be restricted to 15,000 feet and 20,000 feet, respectively. I'm cool with some rule to govern this, but I don't know enough about the different types of AC to know what's "reasonable" for them, other than P39's had very poor higher altitude performance. Can I request we come up with some "hard" numbers, even if there are a few listed exceptions, so I can just refer to my list before blowing this one out my rear end through ignorance? [:D] Also, would this just govern Sweep missions or others as well?

I haven't heard of problems with "stratosphere ESCORT" or "stratosphere BOMBING" missions, so my comments were in reference to SWEEP function.

I don't know if I have hard and fast numbers. I think that ALL fighters should be lower than 25,000 feet. For that matter, I think that heavy bombers (or medium bombers, whatever) should be at or below that too.

Mostly, I'm 'eyeballing' the PLANE INFORMATION and judging from the different altitude bands where the most impressive drop off is. For the Oscar, it's above 30k. For the P-39, there's a major functional decrease between 10-15k. I don't think the P-38 demonstrates significant degradation below 30k. This is mostly a problem with early war fighters, IMO.

We can review the data and come up with suggested 'hard' numbers, if you'd like

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units. I have not messed around with this function at all. What type of limitations are we talking about here?

The IJNAF, in particular, start off with a fair number of ground-based fighter, bomber and recon groups. An aggressive IJN player COULD strip an a/c carrier whilest in port of all planes, land an IJN carrier-capable group on the ship, select "Expand to fit ship" and immediately have a 48, 64 or 72-sized fighter group. He then disembarks this huge fighter group and uses it for IJNAF training thereafter. Bingo-treble one's training capacity.

The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.

Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question.

CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.
[/quote]

I'm always flexible with just about any HR's. I just need to know for sure what I can and can't do. [:)]

No worries, Mike. I'll call, "CHEATER!" early and often if I need to! [:'(]

[USSAmerica]

We have a fan. [8D]

[AW1Steve]

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.


Oh no! You're going to do this to me again , aren't you CB?[:D] I don't suppose you consider an exemption for Manila and Hong Kong to allow a chance of an evacuation?[&:]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

4. Turn 1: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created. Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). I don't insist the Allies conduct the pointless death ride.


Oh no! You're going to do this to me again , aren't you CB

[&:]

[USSAmerica]

I think he's fearing for our Manila based subs.  [:D]

[Lifer]

AS far as paying PPs to move units across boundaries...Are you going to allow the transfer of units into a HQ and then transfer the HQ to get the units without paying the full cost?