Is that gamey?

[pharmy]

Canadian conscripts were used in the Aleutians as Canada stretched the meaning of home defense in their mobilization act especially as a 1942 referendum technically lifted the exclusion to home defense. They still did not send conscripts to the ETO to avoid inflaming Quebecois public opinion and did have serious manpower problems during the Scheldt campaign.

[pharmy]

EDIT : NEVER-MIND what I wrote: just realized its a discussion of base forces not general Canadian ones


The 13th Canadian Brigade Group, who where used to recapture Kiska in August 43 is not listed separately in the game. I'm assuming it is part of the 6th division in November 45, although the 14th Brigade, which was part of the 6th Division does appear right from the get-go.
EDIT: the 13th Brigade is in the game - you have to recombine the 2nd Scottish/Brockville/Edmonton Fusilier battalions

13th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group - OOB

24th Field Regiment, RCA

46th Light AA Battery, RCA

The Canadian Fusiliers

The Winnipeg Grenadiers (have been newly/re-formed after their surrender in Hong Kong)


The Rocky Mountain Rangers

Le Regiment de Hull

one company, St. John Fusiliers (MG)

No. 13 Defence Platoon

24th Field Company, RCE

[AW1Steve]

Canadian militia units (conscripts) MAY not move to the USA without changing commands (and the paying of points). REGULAR Canadian units (both BF's and INF) may transfer to USA bases. This is in keeping with other commonwealth countries (like OZ and NZ) in not letting conscripts be sent overseas. Frankly I think the game is working as designed , and is well designed. The allied player can use units as they were in real life. [:)]

[Flicker]

Thank you all for the discussion.

Is there a consensus on the use of single-ship task forces? I know that the bug out from the Phillipines necessitates their use, but after that some players complain about sponges, pickets, etc. Even in games where single ship TFs are allowed, the question of pickets and sponges is raised.

I like to run single ship task forces to resupply dangerous bases, use local minesweepers, use harbor defense boats, and of course use submarines. When unloading at a port, I will split a TF into smaller units to give at least some ships a turn at the docks.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Flicker

Thank you all for the discussion.

Is there a consensus on the use of single-ship task forces? I know that the bug out from the Phillipines necessitates their use, but after that some players complain about sponges, pickets, etc. Even in games where single ship TFs are allowed, the question of pickets and sponges is raised.

I like to run single ship task forces to resupply dangerous bases, use local minesweepers, use harbor defense boats, and of course use submarines. When unloading at a port, I will split a TF into smaller units to give at least some ships a turn at the docks.

The order "to scatter" was frequently used as a last chance defense through out naval history. A famous use was convoy PQ 17 , which scattered to permit some of the ships to survive when under attack from German surface ships.

I'm not sure where the problem with "single ship task forces" originated , but I believe it was when merchant ships were sent to cause a CV TF to attack it rather than a CV or SC TF behind it. The answer is in your own mind. Are you doing this to "skew the game" by exploiting a game flaw , or simply trying to get some of your ships to safety? Like most things "gamey" the question is intent . I've always gone with a belief in the integrity of my opponent , rather than a large codification of house rules. If you and your opponent don't agree, you probably shouldn't play as you undoubtly have vast philosophical differences. If your opponent uses the single ship gambit to disrupt three CV attacks in a row, don't play against him (or her). Fair is fair, but fair is also in our own minds. [:)] Good luck with your endeavors. [:)]

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Like most things "gamey" the question is intent .

+1

[Michael Vail]

I'm still setting up my 1st turn (Dec. 8, DBB-B Scen #028, AI is Japan). I want to trade to CO's but Tracker says no saved turn. My question is, if I run a turn, save the 9th. Run Tracker and export the leaders. This is the gamey question, I now have a list of leaders as of the 9th so I can make changes but then delete my saved turn and go back to the 8th to change leaders. Basically, I'm getting the leader ratings so I can try and make a semi-intelligent decision, but not keep the results. I don't have their last FITREP to go by.

[m10bob]

That is only "gamey" in that you must do your mentioned "work-around" in order to fill the slots as you see fit..

In real life, many commanders were assigned to train a unit, but their higher ups never intended those commanders to go into combat with those units.
Captain Sobel is a good example. He trained the so-called "Band Of Brothers",(Co E,2nd Bn., 506th PIR) but he did NOT go to combat with them. Historically, he is remembered as an excellent trainer, but not a combat leader whatsoever,(though he did stay with the Rgt HHC)..

You may consider the original commanders (in game) to have been a training cadre, you are replacing them with combat commanders.

[Anthropoid]

Honestly I'm still too new to the game to comprehend most of the posts on the preceding page, but I do have a somewhat related question.

Another player contacted me about getting a PBEM going sometime in the near future (I'll leave it to him to chime in and identify himself if he wants to ). He has a bit more immediate experience with WiTPAE and I replied "Sure! Just let me get up to snuff against the AI, then lets go for it." Ostensibly he'd play the Japs and me allies.

Then I realized, "Wow, its really quite tedious playing this game against the AI" and I find myself dozing off as I make my way through the thousands of individual decisions necessary to get my Dec 8 actions against the AI setup. My recollection from WiTP is that, the more you endure this early stage the less overwhelming, and tedious it becomes and you eventually get a kind of 'gut-level' understanding of the overall picture and can cruise through your turns awake and alert (even against an AI opponent). Nonetheless, in the interest of saving myself this painful 'readjustment' period, I sent a supplementary response suggesting a way to "balance" my lack of experience and get going with a PBEM right away.

I proposed a couple settings (in addition to any 'house rules' that he chose to propose) that I thought might give a bit of an early game advantage to the allies but balance out by offering a longer-term advantage to the Japanese.

1. Historical first turn and first turn surprise off (to benefit allies, short-term)
2. Realist R&D off (to benefit Japan, longer-term)

Am I deluded that this is in anyway a reasonable or interesting setup for a PBEM?

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Am I deluded that this is in anyway a reasonable or interesting setup for a PBEM?

Use a max altitude HR or its just going to end up "highest win". Depending on who I would be playing I might add something about early strat bombing in OZ.

I would never play as the allies with realistic R&D off....make sure you know what you get into if you try this. Its will make a massive impact on the game.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Am I deluded that this is in anyway a reasonable or interesting setup for a PBEM?

Use a max altitude HR or its just going to end up "highest win". Depending on who I would be playing I might add something about early strat bombing in OZ.

I would never play as the allies with realistic R&D off....make sure you know what you get into if you try this. Its will make a massive impact on the game.

Interesting! I had assumed that, with those two settings, the advantages to the allies from no first turn surprise attack might be an unfair disadvantage to the allies. But it sounds like you are saying it would not balance out the longer-term advantage of Realistic R&D off for Japan?

I totally get how historical first turn and surprise off advantages the allies. How exactly would realistic R&D advantage the Japanese?

[KenchiSulla]

Realistic R&D off means that the Japanese player can freely switch factory from production to research and back again... Personally I don't think the Japanese need more factories for production in the early game. It is really sufficient to cover needs so its not that big a deal if you ask me...

[Anthropoid]

Thanks Cannonfodder. So it is a matter of opinion how big of a deal those settings would make.

Seems my PBEM partner is amenable to the suggested settings so he will hopefully send me a turn soon, and I guess we'll both start up our AAR threads.

[geofflambert]

Anthropoid, I don't think I ever achieved posts in 5 different threads consecutively. I'm sure I reached 4 once or twice. You must have practiced up for that in other forums. Ole!




By the way, I am anthropoid too; I have two arms, two legs and no tail.[:'(]

[geofflambert]

Except when I become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.

[Anthropoid]

I take pride in my work.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: 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?

Many developers have stated they use HRs when they play the game. Having an HR is not a problem. In fact they are often a great solution to a problem that can cause tension otherwise (or which grate on either of your feelings for the plausibility of specific details if you play with a historical framework in mind). Paying PPs for border crossings for restricted units and some altitude for sweeps/CAP are fairly common HRs even for those who don't like a lot of HRs.

You just have to find an opponent who wants to play the same kind of game that you want to play. Not always easy to find, but the more discussion you have before and early on, the better.

That said, there are many fewer gamey discussions now than wen I first arrived on the forums 3-4 years ago. A lot has been played through enough there are a lot of examples of what happens now in various situations.

[AW1Steve]

Real men don't use house rules. House rules are for Pansy's. [:D][:D][:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Except when I become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.

Looks like the Gorn gave itself a "hot foot". [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

That is only "gamey" in that you must do your mentioned "work-around" in order to fill the slots as you see fit..

In real life, many commanders were assigned to train a unit, but their higher ups never intended those commanders to go into combat with those units.
Captain Sobel is a good example. He trained the so-called "Band Of Brothers",(Co E,2nd Bn., 506th PIR) but he did NOT go to combat with them. Historically, he is remembered as an excellent trainer, but not a combat leader whatsoever,(though he did stay with the Rgt HHC)..

You may consider the original commanders (in game) to have been a training cadre, you are replacing them with combat commanders.

And let's be honest. A heck of a lot of good training commanders just were not worth anything in combat. Almost every National Guard division had it's original CO replaced before it went overseas.