Is that gamey?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies.

No HRs. No discussion. Play the design.

Japan has building opportunities at home too.

No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!".

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies.

No HRs. No discussion. Play the design.

Japan has building opportunities at home too.

No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!".

Do you have a day job to not quit? [:)]

I agree with the sentiment though. Claiming the Allies shouldn't be allowed to build up AFs in CONUS to train on and ports to be able to load more quickly. That this breaks the design and prevents AV when the devs specifically left in the ability to . . . build up bases in CONUS.

Wow.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Flicker

I'm curious as to what players consider to be gamey. For example:

When ships or troops are due to be withdrawn, I trade out the commander if they're worth saving. Is that gamey?

At least a month before air groups are due to be withdrawn, I'll try to 'upgrade' the planes with older planes. Is that gamey?

If an LCU is scheduled to be withdrawn, I keep reinforcements off. I also try to use it up in combat without getting it destroyed, then park it in a safe spot until it disappears. Is that gamey?

Feel free to comment on these and add your own "Is that gamey?"

As you are playing the AI, I believe these moves are gamey. I might soften this attitude a bit in a PBEM.

Most withdrawals are to support the ETO, remember "Germany First"
Your moves would be seen as putting the Second Front back by months and you would be reassigned to the Falklands Defence Force.

My only tactic is to not fill out any squadron due for release, if it starts with only a handful of aircraft it doesnt get any more.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




No HRs. No discussion. Play the design.

Japan has building opportunities at home too.

No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!".

Do you have a day job to not quit? [:)]

I agree with the sentiment though. Claiming the Allies shouldn't be allowed to build up AFs in CONUS to train on and ports to be able to load more quickly. That this breaks the design and prevents AV when the devs specifically left in the ability to . . . build up bases in CONUS.

Wow.

Why do you ask? Because I take the day after t-day for an extra-long weekend? [&:][:D]


I'm just tired of people trying to manipulate the game (and house rules) to their own nefarious ways and claiming "fairness". [:(]SHUT UP AND PLAY! I say! Just shut up and play![:D] The games not perfect, but it's close enough! [:D]

[Lokasenna]

You guys are silly. Build up the bases. There are more uses for built up bases than just VPs, you know. Like upgrading air groups or having more options for ship repair. Jeez.

Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get.

[:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You guys are silly. Build up the bases. There are more uses for built up bases than just VPs, you know. Like upgrading air groups or having more options for ship repair. Jeez.

Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get.

Yes , if for no other reason than most highly experienced players will go over to the Japanese side eventually , if for no other reason than to increase the challenge. Players of lesser experience (like myself) are not yet ready to play as Japan. It's the lessor experienced players who want to start out as Japan before they've learned to master the game who scream for all the advantages. A well seasoned , experienced player doesn't generally scream "gamey". He (or in the case of Graffin) say's "So?" And shuts up and plays. [&o][&o][&o]To those players , we who are not yet ready to play (as LYB's) salute you and admire you. To the rookies constantly trying to gain some kind of edge, we say "Shut up and play!" and "Learn your game! REAL JFB's don't need house rules!". [:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve





No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!".

Do you have a day job to not quit? [:)]

I agree with the sentiment though. Claiming the Allies shouldn't be allowed to build up AFs in CONUS to train on and ports to be able to load more quickly. That this breaks the design and prevents AV when the devs specifically left in the ability to . . . build up bases in CONUS.

Wow.

Why do you ask? Because I take the day after t-day for an extra-long weekend? [&:][:D]


I'm just tired of people trying to manipulate the game (and house rules) to their own nefarious ways and claiming "fairness". [:(]SHUT UP AND PLAY! I say! Just shut up and play![:D] The games not perfect, but it's close enough! [:D]

Nah, I was just joking about your lyric-writing. [:)]

You know how I feel about "shut up and play", bro.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You guys are silly. Build up the bases. There are more uses for built up bases than just VPs, you know. Like upgrading air groups or having more options for ship repair. Jeez.

Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get.

Yes , if for no other reason than most highly experienced players will go over to the Japanese side eventually , if for no other reason than to increase the challenge. Players of lesser experience (like myself) are not yet ready to play as Japan. It's the lessor experienced players who want to start out as Japan before they've learned to master the game who scream for all the advantages. A well seasoned , experienced player doesn't generally scream "gamey". He (or in the case of Graffin) say's "So?" And shuts up and plays. [&o][&o][&o]To those players , we who are not yet ready to play (as LYB's) salute you and admire you. To the rookies constantly trying to gain some kind of edge, we say "Shut up and play!" and "Learn your game! REAL JFB's don't need house rules!". [:D]

Damn right [:)]

[Flicker]

Thanks for the discussion. I think if I were to play PBEM I would prefer the Moose approach - no house rules (except for some Turn 1 agreements like China warzone, existing TF flexibility, and CAP).

This leads into a gamey question - if PPs are required to cross national borders, what do players do about Canadian Base Forces? If they are stuck in Canada then I guess Canada gets built up to the max on Ports and AFs, since the Canadians usually don't have to defend their territory. Also, only unrestricted US units could move north to assist in the defense. In my AI game, I limit myself to buying out Chinese units - because most restricted units must be bought out to transport anyway (i.e., Indian and British restricted units in India can fight in Burma and Southeast Asia and China, as long as they walk).

I like to use Canadian Base Forces to help construct and operate US West Coast ports. Is that gamey?

[Amoral]

Using Canadian BFs to operate US bases would break the rule on restricted units not crossing national borders. But that is just a house rule.

[Flicker]

Amoral - yeah, after reading up on it I think that I'll send the Canadians back home. Thanks.

In game, the Base Forces can't be bought out but can move across the border, but I don't know if the troops would protest being sent to San Diego or not (conscripts, by law, couldn't be sent out of the country, e.g. the 'Terrace Mutiny' - volunteers could be sent overseas, which is IMO represented by paying PPs for the units that are buyable).

I'm trying to get some things straight in my head should I ever be able to play PBEM. So, house rule = no Canadians w/o PP. IMO the Indians and British should be able to walk to Singapore from India without paying PP.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Flicker

Amoral - yeah, after reading up on it I think that I'll send the Canadians back home. Thanks.

In game, the Base Forces can't be bought out but can move across the border, but I don't know if the troops would protest being sent to San Diego or not (conscripts, by law, couldn't be sent out of the country, e.g. the 'Terrace Mutiny' - volunteers could be sent overseas, which is IMO represented by paying PPs for the units that are buyable).

I'm trying to get some things straight in my head should I ever be able to play PBEM. So, house rule = no Canadians w/o PP. IMO the Indians and British should be able to walk to Singapore from India without paying PP.

So it's OK if you're an imperialist colonizer, but not OK between closest friends? If Japan landed at Victoria the US wouldn't offer to help, gratis? We'd wait until we built up enough national will to help?

[Flicker]

Moose - good point, however it's just for my AI game house rules; the Canadian's -did- have a law against sending conscripts to 'foreign' soil, plus most Canadians who served in WW2 never left Canada. I might send the Base Forces back to the US coast after they upgrade from conscripts (IIRC)...

Heck, I debate myself about sending Americans to reinforce the Southeast Asia / CBI theater (BTW I won the debate). In a PBEM game there would be no debate.

It -was- OK for the Imperialist colonizer at the time (re: Brits walking to Singapore from India). Although the US was reticent about helping the Europeans regaining their colonies, at the same time the US was eager to regain the Phillipine colony.

I would have to think about it for a PBEM game - I like your developers rules / no rules approach, especially since WITPAE is 'just' a game. I really like having the Canadian engineers and radars on the West Coast (and US Infantry and AA in Canada). The game would be even more complex than it is if that level of granularity were present. I can't even play the complexity of Japan, much less check to see if a Canadian law is followed...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Flicker

I would have to think about it for a PBEM game - I like your developers rules / no rules approach, especially since WITPAE is 'just' a game. I really like having the Canadian engineers and radars on the West Coast (and US Infantry and AA in Canada). The game would be even more complex than it is if that level of granularity were present. I can't even play the complexity of Japan, much less check to see if a Canadian law is followed...

If you play PBEM you better figure out what you're willing to do with the Aleutians. Canada is very helpful there right away.

[Flicker]

For PBEM Allied players on Turn 1, is it OK to start moving LCUs or should they stay in place? Is it OK to change a unit to Strat mode?

Is it OK to start construction of ports, airfields, and forts?

I realize that many of my questions are noobish, but I don't have much experience playing PBEM games of any kind (I've played a couple of AACW scenarios against humans). I ask because I don't know if Japan is supposed to 'steal a march' on the first day.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Flicker

For PBEM Allied players on Turn 1, is it OK to start moving LCUs or should they stay in place? Is it OK to change a unit to Strat mode?

Is it OK to start construction of ports, airfields, and forts?

I realize that many of my questions are noobish, but I don't have much experience playing PBEM games of any kind (I've played a couple of AACW scenarios against humans). I ask because I don't know if Japan is supposed to 'steal a march' on the first day.

It depends on which opening type you have set in the interface, then on agreements with your opponent. If Dec. 8th start of course it's not an issue.

Some games have no restrictions, and others range from no carrier-hunting on the first day for Japan, to CAP allowed in China only, to CAP in China, Malaysia and the PI only, to no TF moves, to any TF moves. It's up to the players. I personally don't think it matters much. If the Allies can save Force Z it adds options for sure, but it isn't determinative. In my game with Cliff he sank Enterprise with a lucky sub find and luckier hit roll for Fires. Not fun losing a carrier the first week, but that's war. You adjust and fight on.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Flicker

Amoral - yeah, after reading up on it I think that I'll send the Canadians back home. Thanks.

In game, the Base Forces can't be bought out but can move across the border, but I don't know if the troops would protest being sent to San Diego or not (conscripts, by law, couldn't be sent out of the country, e.g. the 'Terrace Mutiny' - volunteers could be sent overseas, which is IMO represented by paying PPs for the units that are buyable).

I'm trying to get some things straight in my head should I ever be able to play PBEM. So, house rule = no Canadians w/o PP. IMO the Indians and British should be able to walk to Singapore from India without paying PP.

So it's OK if you're an imperialist colonizer, but not OK between closest friends? If Japan landed at Victoria the US wouldn't offer to help, gratis? We'd wait until we built up enough national will to help?

Then I suppose the USA needs to stop building the highway across Canada, because it's using US Army troops? And those Canadian and UK troops training in the USA need to go home? And all those ships , planes and pieces of equipment need to pay points before they go to the Canadian and British armies for lend lease? [&:]

[Lokasenna]

CONUS, Canada...what's the difference? It's all North America to me.

[AW1Steve]

In WW2 there really wasn't much of a border. My wife's family was from Island Pond VT. Right on the border. No fences , no checkpoints. The main social center in town , the Derby Line INN , had the national border run right through it's main dining room. Come to think of it , it still is. [X(][:D]