The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Rather than paraphrase, here's John's email for the 1/31/42 turn:  "Had a strange thing happen. Had a Shock Attack at Singapore but don’t know WHICH unit. Strange. No change in any of my three ID so guess it was an AI blip." 

Nothing more be said about it, but I thought you guys might prefer the actual message.

From your earlier comment I assume the VP tables showed the tale?
The Moose
Houtje
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:53 am
Location: Netherlands

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Houtje »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Rather than paraphrase, here's John's email for the 1/31/42 turn:  "Had a strange thing happen. Had a Shock Attack at Singapore but don’t know WHICH unit. Strange. No change in any of my three ID so guess it was an AI blip." 

Nothing more be said about it, but I thought you guys might prefer the actual message.


Thanks, and agree on nothing more to be said about it here: good thing you keep tabs on the VP, though, and sth. you should keep doing, apparently.
Schlemiel
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:02 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Schlemiel »

I've heard reports of the combat log getting desynchronized in other AARs before, where the combat replay for one player shows things that don't happen in the actual turn update. I'd pin it on something like that before I'd call it dissembling. He'd get a lot more advantage creating uncertainty in you if you saw a shock attack that hadn't actually happened, imo. I just don't see any real advantage for his to dissemble in this situation. You both know you won't launch an attack to die more quickly as Singapore, and he can't know what you've been pondering in regards to Percival. You already knew the status of the three IDs at Singapore, more or less, so I fail to see any real advantage to him in creating a fake message here. That said, you've played him before, so you probably have a better read in that regard.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

2/6/42 to 2/8/42
 
NoPac:  On nearing Attu Island, the American carrier TFs found a nest of enemy subs.  There was one ASW action between one sub and some DDs.  John may have picked up sufficient intel to deduce my carriers are there (or strongly suspect so).  The carriers have retired ESE to cover the new landings at Akutan.  Tonight, a bombardment force including BBs Idaho and Warspite will visit Umnak Island.  These things, augmented by new recon flights over Adak, should have John's full and complete attention.  I'm hoping that it will arouse his desire to intervene. 

Pacific:   As soon as the landings at Akutan are finished (two or three days), the American carriers will vamose to San Fran, refuel, and then make for Tahiti.  The plan is for the carriers to be in a position to lend a hand with reinforcement convoys bound to either India or Oz, if either is threatened in a big way, or to move on large enemy invasion fleets (assuming that the Pearl Harbor Branch of the KB is confirmed far away - someplace sexy like Alaska).  QE will refueld just north of Tahiti tonight and should be in Los Angeles in about five days.

New Guinea:  John has marched a unit across the Owen Stanley Mountains to Port Moresby.  I'll find out via bombardment how strong it is.  This is one of my high personal pet peeves (as articulated at length in GreyJoy's game vs. Rader).  The game permits it; therefore there is nothing wrong with it; it's just my own personal "have you no shame?" feelings.

DEI:  IJA 22nd Div. invaded and took Makassar a few days ago.  Now, 22/C Div. is invading Kendari.  That's yet another division misallocated (IMO).  If John is frustrated by the events at Clark Field and Singapore, he need only look at his recent uses of 56th and 22nd divisions.

China:  John is gathering for a push at Changsha, Hengyang, or the city in between (Siangtan?).  My MLR in this vicinity is not strong enough to lend confidence at all points.  I'm shifting and attending as best I can.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Crackaces »

John has marched a unit across the Owen Stanley Mountains to Port Moresby. I'll find out via bombardment how strong it is. This is one of my high personal pet peeves (as articulated at length in GreyJoy's game vs. Rader). The game permits it; therefore there is nothing wrong with it; it's just my own personal "have you no shame?" feelings.

If such moves were a backbreaker in your affair: Read John vs. Nemo in a PBEM Gettysburg contest. A flaw in the game is stacking limits. As things start to go Nemo's way John starts stacking units to an unbelievable level gaining what seemed to be a melee advantage toward the end gaol of winning. Nemo follows suit and takes a great advatage overall . game ends as "borked" ...

I do think that is one huge premise before starting WitP AE in particular is to ask the question, "Are we going to assemble a bunch of home rules to delude ourselves that this game is a similation", or do we need to make up a list of home rules to make the game more playable? I might suggest that with each home rule it introduces its own "gameyness." The other game expierence is like the the game The Moose is playing ... play the game as desgined with all its faults as a game. I beleive the former starts to break down with the air module detacting raids at the target rather than at the very least first base crossed [forget circles of apollonius], the naval model has a problem with BB's shooting big guns at small targets, and the ground model has a problem with small fragements of support troops exerting the same influence in a hex as a full strength Corps. Just three pretty major constraints to a similation IMHO besides many other nits.

That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions. Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Just as a note, I am now convinced that an all out attack in Burma using US forces has such an effect in this game. Although it very possible in the game -- it upsets game flow so much that it ruins game balance and the experince overall. I am not sure the Owen Stanely Mountain thing falls in that category [;)]
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
If John is frustrated by the events at Clark Field and Singapore, he need only look at his recent uses of 56th and 22nd divisions.

Yup. Why he's got IJA IDs climbing the Owen Stanleys whilest allowing these bastions to fester behind the lines is beyond me.

How's your supply situation at Clark?
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.

Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.
Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

In discussing these issues, I hope I am not giving the appearance that I am disenchanted with John.  Not at all!  John is a friend and somebody I really enjoy playing.  I am glad that's his focus is on winning the game, because that makes it more fun on my end.

During the ebb and flow of games, issues arise that register on a player's "Richter Scale."  I am perhaps too free in mentioning those.  I do so because they interest me, and may interest you guys, but I try to qualify in noting that I am expressing my own personal viewpoints and not assigning them to my opponent.

That's just the case with things like the "dissembling" about Imperial Guards and marching overland to Port Moresby.  I choose not to do them, but I do not impose my own private speed bumps on my opponents.

If I get really irritated, I'll either figure out a way to get revenge (within reason) or I'll bring it to my opponent for discussion.  As an example of the former, in my first AE match against Miller, he destroyed the Chinese army.  I was mortified, so I decided that in the end the Chinese would get revenge (they did, with the help of the Western Allies, in late 1944).

And the flip side is true.  My opponents have had legitimate concerns about things that I've done, which we've dealt with in the past.  My free use of picket ships being one example.

I'm really enjoying the game against John right now.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

2/9/42
 
NoPac:  I really like the "feel" of things up here.  The landings at Akutan are going smoothly, Allied recon flew over Umnak, and IJ Mavis patrol aircraft caught wind of my carriers and also raided the transports at Akutan.  Tomorrow, Idaho and Warspite bombard Umnak.  I think there's a decent chance John will send his carriers up here to restore order.  If he does so, that's the equivalent of a decisive victory in battle, because without the carriers John can't impose his will on either Oz or India.  (If John doesn't react as hoped, the Allies can take comfort in occupying two forward islands that can be built large; this will be useful later in the game.)
 
Pacific:  Things are temporarily quiet.  The main event is QE steaming north towards Los Angeles.
 
Oz:  Quiet here at the moment.  Up at Port Morebsy, 144th IJA Regiment arrived with more units on the way.  Shame on John!  [:)]
 
DEI:  56th Div., which recently landed at Makassar, is now invading Java's east coast.  The Allies defenses in Java are incredibly weak, since I drew off a number of units to occupy Cocos and Christmas Islands, so seeing IJ divisions come here rather than go to Singers or Clark (or elsewhere) is a small victory.  Singers is down to about 28k supply.  Of note, the AA units have exacted an important toll on the daily enemy air raids for well over a month now.
 
Philippines:  Clark is down to 25k supply, but John is giving this base little attention.  It may hold out as long as Singers if John doesn't reinforce.  Remember when John waxed ecstatic when Manila fell early?  He's not waxing over Clark. 
 
India:  18th UK Div. at Diego is up to 200 AV (having started at 140 AV about a month ago).
 
Burma:  The IJA presence in Burma is very small.  The Allies have been slowly retiring with the intention of not having the small units cut off by an invasion of Chittagong.  I want to use the troops to garrison the small bases in NE India.  So Burma is a backwater at present.
 
China:  An advance Chinese unit reports a stack moving toward Kweilin or Liuchow.  I don't have much in this area at the moment, so I need more information to determine if I have enough to hold.  One of John's demoralized armies NE of Changsha tried a deliberate attack in a forested hex and miserably failed (about the eighth failure for this particular group of units).
 
 
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20691
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.

Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.
Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.
Historically the Australians did first defend along the Kokoda track and later pushed on to Buna, so there was some ability to move there. But from old movies I have seen of men hanging on to ropes to climb 50º slopes covered in slippery mud, no vehicles or artillery beyond mortars could make the traverse. Even mules had trouble bringing forward supplies.

The game is not meant to be strictly historical, but if one wants to adhere to the spirit of the thing only units without vehicles and artillery should make the traverse, and the rate of movement should be slowed by using Combat/movement or Rest/movement. If the spirit of historical difficulties is not a consideration, the fact that the tunnel works both ways is a balance of sorts.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Philippines:  Clark is down to 25k supply, but John is giving this base little attention.  It may hold out as long as Singers if John doesn't reinforce.  Remember when John waxed ecstatic when Manila fell early?  He's not waxing over Clark. 

Assume that you're still digging at both Clark and Bataan? What are forts like in both these locations?
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Canoerebel »

The airfields at Bataan and Clark are trashed.  Forts are zero at Clark.  Supply is zero at Bataan.  So the fort situation is unlikely to change before these two bases are extinquished.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Kansas

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by jeffk3510 »

I am late to the game.. but, did you not cram as much supply as you could into Bataan and build forts from day one?

If you did, and the situation is entirely different than what normally happens there, tell me to kindly leave.

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by GreyJoy »

stacking limits are the solution for the Kodoka trail issue and for Burma too[&o]
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Crackaces »

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.


Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

If the subject is presenting with an historical problem and the game senses no differences between an armored division and a light infantry support company -- then I suggested to provide the historical problem of an amphibious attack vs. marching overland using a black and white home rule. I was not exploring that unit 'X' can and unit 'Y; cannot. As it is in the game .. it is quite possible .. I would contend even with stacking limits ...to cross the Owen Stanelys and successfully undo PM completly avoiding the question of an amphib invasion post amphib bonus .. such was my point. I am thinking that CR feels a better game with that historical choice without having to delve into the details you suggest. But I would also contend that you bring up a good point in that details like this are imporant to a set of players and should be disscussed in detail before enaging in this very long affair. I pulled off Operation Capital 2 years ealier than my opponent felt possible historically, and the led to a lot of unhappiness on both sides. This game goes on too long with players being unhappy and not enjoying the journey ... IMHO ...
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Crackaces
That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions.

Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.
Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.
Historically the Australians did first defend along the Kokoda track and later pushed on to Buna, so there was some ability to move there. But from old movies I have seen of men hanging on to ropes to climb 50º slopes covered in slippery mud, no vehicles or artillery beyond mortars could make the traverse. Even mules had trouble bringing forward supplies.

The game is not meant to be strictly historical, but if one wants to adhere to the spirit of the thing only units without vehicles and artillery should make the traverse, and the rate of movement should be slowed by using Combat/movement or Rest/movement. If the spirit of historical difficulties is not a consideration, the fact that the tunnel works both ways is a balance of sorts.

Because it works in game it's tough to limit. My game with Jockmeister is a perfect example right now. I was forced out of Port Moresby after a long siege and several Japanese units retreated to the hex representing the pass to Buna. They had motorized support, large artillery, DP, and AA guns, radar, the works. This is in December, so the beginning of the rainy season, or what could be considered the monsoon.

I had the option to move SE to Milne Bay, but that would undoubtedly have led to several units starving and I'm not sure that journey through rugged tropical jungles would have been any easier for the equipment in tow.

Once I reached Buna I noticed the Allies starting to march. They also went right over the Owen Stanleys, and several units did not even use the 'track' hex. I'm still not sure what they are, but i would put money down that it's at least two if not three divisions.

So is that okay? What is okay?

A house rule would not stop the forces retreating to a position on the mountains, but it would prevent intentional crossings.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



Well, I don't see how disallowing Buna/Gona-Port Moresby overland travel across the Kokoda trail / track could be considered historical? But it's a fine line from there to allowing overland travel throughout the whole of P/NG. Then it's a short journey to allowing massive armies to march unimpeded everywhere in the impenetrable jungles of P/NG.

A spectrum from white to black. Which shade of grey is the right shade? This gets to the 'feels about right' stage and partner selection. It's critically important to understand one's prospective opponent and his attitude about these sorts of things.



Agree. Dan's received all manner of comments like this to date, so I'll cease my observations along these lines.
Historically the Australians did first defend along the Kokoda track and later pushed on to Buna, so there was some ability to move there. But from old movies I have seen of men hanging on to ropes to climb 50º slopes covered in slippery mud, no vehicles or artillery beyond mortars could make the traverse. Even mules had trouble bringing forward supplies.

The game is not meant to be strictly historical, but if one wants to adhere to the spirit of the thing only units without vehicles and artillery should make the traverse, and the rate of movement should be slowed by using Combat/movement or Rest/movement. If the spirit of historical difficulties is not a consideration, the fact that the tunnel works both ways is a balance of sorts.

Because it works in game it's tough to limit. My game with Jockmeister is a perfect example right now. I was forced out of Port Moresby after a long siege and several Japanese units retreated to the hex representing the pass to Buna. They had motorized support, large artillery, DP, and AA guns, radar, the works. This is in December, so the beginning of the rainy season, or what could be considered the monsoon.

I had the option to move SE to Milne Bay, but that would undoubtedly have led to several units starving and I'm not sure that journey through rugged tropical jungles would have been any easier for the equipment in tow.

Once I reached Buna I noticed the Allies starting to march. They also went right over the Owen Stanleys, and several units did not even use the 'track' hex. I'm still not sure what they are, but i would put money down that it's at least two if not three divisions.

So is that okay? What is okay?

A house rule would not stop the forces retreating to a position on the mountains, but it would prevent intentional crossings.

obvert-that sort of sensible approach is what I strive for in my games. Usually (I've been blessed with partners) we see eye-to-eye on this.

The execution of the P/NG campaign is one that I've had problems with in the past. Granted, that was under (several) different patches and a much earlier start.
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20691
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by BBfanboy »

Agreed - you can't do anything about the retreating troops since you have no control of the direction of initial retreat.
The game does favour a retreating force - foot soldiers running from tanks on shock attack make it into the next hex, leaving the tanks 46 miles behind them - that's some great marathon they ran. Most annoying is how guns are saved by the retreating unit even when there are no squads left in the unit and no vehicles to tow them.
Anyhoo ... the stacking limit idea would certainly impose some penalty on movement whether the unit is retreated into the hex or moving on assault. No easy answer that will satisfy all the possiblilites other than both sides using the Owen Stanley tunnel as they see fit.[8|]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

This is a funny topic. [:)]

The OS Mountians aren't special; they just have more photos. They were very, very hard to walk across. Stipulated. Lots of nice pictures of how hard it was. They had good PR agents. But if someone wants to make a deal of this in the game, if they're honest, they also never, ever let tanks or arty or AA units move through jungle except on gray or yellow roads. Never fight off road, never cross the jungle. OK, maybe, just maybe, if they have a combat engineer unit with them in the hex at all times. Not an engineer unit mind you, but realio trulio combat engineers laying corduroy roads. How many miles of corduroy road can a good combat engineer unit lay in a day? Three miles? When it's not monsoon?

I prefer the Japanese come over the OS Mountians. You can see them coming for a long time.
The Moose
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6430
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

Post by JeffroK »

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
John has marched a unit across the Owen Stanley Mountains to Port Moresby. I'll find out via bombardment how strong it is. This is one of my high personal pet peeves (as articulated at length in GreyJoy's game vs. Rader). The game permits it; therefore there is nothing wrong with it; it's just my own personal "have you no shame?" feelings.

If such moves were a backbreaker in your affair: Read John vs. Nemo in a PBEM Gettysburg contest. A flaw in the game is stacking limits. As things start to go Nemo's way John starts stacking units to an unbelievable level gaining what seemed to be a melee advantage toward the end gaol of winning. Nemo follows suit and takes a great advatage overall . game ends as "borked" ...

I do think that is one huge premise before starting WitP AE in particular is to ask the question, "Are we going to assemble a bunch of home rules to delude ourselves that this game is a similation", or do we need to make up a list of home rules to make the game more playable? I might suggest that with each home rule it introduces its own "gameyness." The other game expierence is like the the game The Moose is playing ... play the game as desgined with all its faults as a game. I beleive the former starts to break down with the air module detacting raids at the target rather than at the very least first base crossed [forget circles of apollonius], the naval model has a problem with BB's shooting big guns at small targets, and the ground model has a problem with small fragements of support troops exerting the same influence in a hex as a full strength Corps. Just three pretty major constraints to a similation IMHO besides many other nits.

That said, I do agree that prohibiting movement across the Owen Stanley mountians makes a better game in that it presents the IJ with an historical problem with lots of decisions. Personally, I do not think John is playing the game for the journey, but toward a final goal of winning -- no matter how much that upsets the play balance or game flow. I might suggest to the group that this is one more criteria for selecting a gaming partner.

Just as a note, I am now convinced that an all out attack in Burma using US forces has such an effect in this game. Although it very possible in the game -- it upsets game flow so much that it ruins game balance and the experince overall. I am not sure the Owen Stanely Mountain thing falls in that category [;)]
Whats the problem with marching a Division across the Owen Stanleys, my only comment is that it has to be in COMBAT status, not MOVE.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”