Looking for Allied Player - CLOSED

[armin]

I offer two options of gameplay. Free mode or more realistical. Changes to any settings can be made per request.

Free mode:
SCEN 1

*historical first turn off
*december suprise on
*hexes on
*allied dmg control off
*reliable torpedos off
*no night bombing
*player defined upgrade on
*realistical research off
*reinforcment +-60 days (to balance the research and upgrades)
*max alt 29ft
*crossing borders costs pp
*strategic bombing of assets after 6/43
*no naval bombing with 4e under 10k ft
*no FP units resizing to boost training system
*fast transports (7th dec) cant deploy units behind enemy lines

More realistical:
DABIGBABES-B 28

*historical first turn off
*december suprise on
*hexes off
*allied dmg control on
*reliable torpedos off
*no night bombing
*no strategic bombing before 1943
*player defined upgrade off
*realistical research on
*reinforcments historical - fixed
*no unified command (each nations unit need to be managed separately (example: no rushing 70 hexes with us/new zealand units to save dutch units etc, mixed fleets need to have at least 70% one faction dominant.)
*Chinese units may only operate in China and Burma.Thailand units may not invade beyond Rangoon.
*The Allied player can move only existing fleets on 7 Dec.
*crossing borders - pp price
*no FP units resizing to boost training system
*fast transports (7th dec) cant deploy units behind enemy lines - means cant bypass more then one hostile base on the route.
* no allied skip bombing before 1943
* no allied subs in the sea of japan until 1945
* no allied kamikaze attacks (spamming convoys to protect main target or using ships without backup as throw aways.)

[Barb]

American=allied or located in america? [:)]

[armin]

Yes allied player, sorry for my english.

[castor troy]

why would you think Allied damage control off would be more realistic? Off means they would be as good/bad as the Japanese in the game, does that sound realistic to you?

[Puhis]

He is not saying it's totally realistic, he is only suggesting two modes, 'free' and 'more realistic'... As far as I can tell both modes have allied damage control off but other options vary.

[armin]

Well manual considers it in general way for all crafts which historically would be not correct. There is no way that some merchant vessel, submarine would have the same trained crew or facilities as destroyer or carrier. if there would be multiple options i would agree but they arent.

[ALF1]

I send you PM. please replay. thanks

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: armin

Well manual considers it in general way for all crafts which historically would be not correct. There is no way that some merchant vessel, submarine would have the same trained crew or facilities as destroyer or carrier. if there would be multiple options i would agree but they arent.

The game scenarios already take those differences into account.

Alfred

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: armin

Well manual considers it in general way for all crafts which historically would be not correct. There is no way that some merchant vessel, submarine would have the same trained crew or facilities as destroyer or carrier. if there would be multiple options i would agree but they arent.

The game scenarios already take those differences into account.

Alfred

I successfully restrained myself from commenting that submarine crews were much, much more trained man-per-man than DDs and CVs of the era. Surface warfare qualification in the USN only appeared in the 1970s.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I successfully restrained myself

You did?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I successfully restrained myself

You did?

For awhile. [:)]

[armin]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: armin

Well manual considers it in general way for all crafts which historically would be not correct. There is no way that some merchant vessel, submarine would have the same trained crew or facilities as destroyer or carrier. if there would be multiple options i would agree but they arent.

The game scenarios already take those differences into account.

Alfred

So is allied damage control a historical option or its a bonus for new players who fight japanese AI side?

[mike scholl 1]

I'm more intrigued by:

*historical first turn off
*december suprise on

...with no limit placed on Japanese "non-historical" movement. There is a large portion of thee map where Japanese TF's can't sail without being spotted, and for which there is no justification except war for their presense, but you want to mandate "surprise" regardless.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: armin

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: armin

Well manual considers it in general way for all crafts which historically would be not correct. There is no way that some merchant vessel, submarine would have the same trained crew or facilities as destroyer or carrier. if there would be multiple options i would agree but they arent.

The game scenarios already take those differences into account.

Alfred

So is allied damage control a historical option or its a bonus for new players who fight japanese AI side?

if you turn it off, it's the same for both sides, which means the Japanese will have better damage control abilities than the Allied as the Japanese have overall higher experience. Does this sound realistic or historic to you? It doesn't for me but to each his own.

[khyberbill]

*allied dmg control off

I have never seen this as an HR option before. Also, while not exactly historical, I suspect the Japanese player really wants to play with PDU ON. For the allied player, at the beginning of the game it doesnt matter because there arent enough planes to worry about it and at the end of the game, the Allied player has more than enough planes.