Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America
Could we consider our own "quiet China" approach? Basically, leave China alone.

Naw...

I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing. [:D]

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?

[USSAmerica]

Here's where I think we stand on settings/rules/etc. I'll edit the first post and paste these in, so we have one place to refer to.

Summary to date:

I believe there are no objections to any of these settings. Please speak up if I'm wrong. (It's been known to happen)

Realism Options:
FOW, Adv Weather, Allied DC, PDU, 12/7/41 Surprise ... all on.
Reliable USN torps OFF, Real RnD on, No Withdrawals OFF, replacements for both Fixed.

Hist Turn 1 OFF. We can work out any restrictions for orders on Turn 1 with a HR.

Game Options:
CR's on, Auto Subs off, TF and plane radius on, Expansion, Upgrades, Air and Ground replacements all off. 2 day turns. Thanks for agreeing to this, Brothers. I think we'll all come to enjoy using them. Or, I'll have to provide beer to you all regularly. [:D]

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.

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


Proposed HR's:

1. PP paid for LCU movement out of restricted command borders. Exception: Japan allowed to use the four Thai Army 'divisions' within 4 hexes of the Thai border. Allies will have the same option for the (restricted) Indian troops around Burma. Anything more than that and we've gotta pay the PP. I think we are all agreed on this one.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 in China. Maybe still negotiating this one.... [:D]

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. Need to refine and define this one a bit....

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. Still need to refine if Japan allowed to port strike Manila on turn 1, due to using 2 day turns.

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.

I believe there are no objections to this one, either.


6. Any additional proposed HR's, other than don't pull blatant gamey moves?

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: 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?

A fair question. I put it in the same camp as the Allies paying only 1/4 total PP cost to transfer an LCU to an Air HQ that is unrestricted, but in the same command. Sure, it's not historically plausible, but I don't know if it should be officially labeled "gamey" or not. I'll vote for allowing these type of moves, but will gladly accept the consensus.

If it's done in the spirit of establishing a truly independent separate command and filling it with units for execution of that command's mission, that's one thing. If it's done to skirt the PP payment rules and permit easy extraction of units for unlimited other uses, that's quite another. The first is reasonable, the second gamey.

Fair enough. We can consider this to be covered under "don't be gamey." [8D]

[scott64]

Forgot one HR. Each CV/CVE/CVL sunk by the other party will result in a case of beer sent to the other side. [:D][:'(]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Forgot one HR. Each CV/CVE/CVL sunk by the other party will result in a case of beer sent to the other side. [:D][:'(]

Mynok and I can settle those scores on our end rather conveniently since we live about 30 minutes apart. [:D]

[Mynok]

I'll be sure to send over a case of HorsePiss Light when we lose a carrier........[:D]

[USSAmerica]

Just no Heffalump Lager.  [:D]

Edit: I have no idea why I found that so hysterical, but I'm laughing again a day later. [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



Naw...

I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing. [:D]

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?

Andre LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEESSSSSSS CHINA! I wish it would just go away. I'd give it to him if he'd trade me something nice for it![:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America




I talked myself out of that idea by the time I finished typing. [:D]

Yay! Did someone say 'China'?

Andre LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEESSSSSSS CHINA! I wish it would just go away. I'd give it to him if he'd trade me something nice for it![:D]

We'll trade you your precious Douglas MacArthur for China. Either *you* keep him or China, not both. Ha!

[USSAmerica]

Can we keep him commanding the base force in Nome? [:D]

[USSAmerica]

Heard back from the first person I PM'ed, and he's not in the loop as far as the DB patch is concerned.  Sent a second PM to The Man who will know.  Still waiting for a response. 

Meanwhile, let's take a look at what we have outstanding to settle.

2.  No Strat Bombing until '43 and none to targets in China until '44.  Are we cool with this one?  I am...

3.  Stratosphere Sweep... I'm fine with having a rule governing this, and fine with the numbers mentioned for the planes mentioned.  What could we use for other early AC, like Wildcats, and later arriving fighters?  Is there an alternative "rule of thumb" that we could use instead of different hard ceilings for different models, for instance based on the maneuver ratings?  Need suggestions here and I'll dig through the different threads on this topic for ideas.

4.  Need to define limits and exceptions for Allied TF's on turns 1 & 2 if port strikes other than Pearl Harbor are allowed.

Any additional HR suggestions?  Mynok, I believe the few we used in our CHS game are now irrelevant in AE.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Can we keep him commanding the base force in Nome? [:D]

That's too close to home..Diego Garcia![:D] (Unless we can bribe the Japanese to just shoot him! )[:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



Yay! Did someone say 'China'?

Andre LOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEESSSSSSS CHINA! I wish it would just go away. I'd give it to him if he'd trade me something nice for it![:D]

We'll trade you your precious Douglas MacArthur for China. Either *you* keep him or China, not both. Ha!

What'll want to shoot him for us? [:D]

[USSAmerica]

I think I may have found a good summary for our StratoSweep HR.  Check out TheElf's post #168 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=6&key=

"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. 

He's the game's lead air developer.  I'll buy what he's selling.  [:D]

Of course, like all HR's, if the situation warrents that the rule does not work any longer it can be changed.  Comments or objections?

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: USS America

Can we keep him commanding the base force in Nome? [:D]

That's too close to home..Diego Garcia![:D] (Unless we can bribe the Japanese to just shoot him! )[:D]

Port Stanley?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I think I may have found a good summary for our StratoSweep HR.  Check out TheElf's post #168 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=6&key=

"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. 

He's the game's lead air developer.  I'll buy what he's selling.  [:D]

Of course, like all HR's, if the situation warrents that the rule does not work any longer it can be changed.  Comments or objections?

That's pretty close to the spirit of the proposed HR. I'll look over the airplane DB some tonight and see if we can pick on a few examples.

[Chickenboy]

Gentlemen,

Please see the Cap'n Mandrake / Sprior AAR. There are some xAK / PB gameyness issues that we need to have an understanding about moving forward.

I've seen increased use of xAKL, xAK and PBs used as 'picket ships' in the last several months of AARs. I'm not thrilled with this useage. That's one thing-looking out for surprise a/c carriers. Using them as precursors to SCTF arrival-soaking up ammo and torpedoes in order to deplete defenders' stores is quite another.

Are we in agreement that this sort of practice is to be frowned upon in our game?

[USSAmerica]

I agree, Andre.  Pickets/lookouts, sure.  Intentional ammo sponges, no.

[thegreatwent]

Ammo sponges are a sure no no. Altitude can be difficult to HR, the maneuver altitude solution works and is more simple then setting limits for each aircraft model[X(]

Any thoughts on the Mersing Gambit. Essentially the Japanese can land at Mersing Dec 7th barring a Force Z sacrifice. If that is done then Singapore falls to early IMO. I suggest that Mersing can be landed on no earlier than Dec, 8th.

[Mynok]

I'm on board with the maneuver rating rule for Sweeps.

Also do not intend to land at Mersing before the 8th.

I'm just fine with trawlers being used as pickets. This is quite normal actually in real life.

I agree that using small vessels as surface combat 'interference' is gamey. We should be clear on how that is to be judged, however, as there can be any number of legitimate instances where a small transport task force and a SC TF enter a hex containing unfriendlies at the same time. Indeed, IIRC, there have been quite a few complaints about the SC code where a SC TF watches obliviously while a transport TF in the same hex is mauled by an enemy SC TF.

Or how about running a gang of PB/G's into the hex along with the SC TF? Is that more, less or just as gamey?