Oh no! This could lead to a Thread War!

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


[That would probably be too simple. I'd understand that. [:D] Like I said, I really don't care any more. I'm sorry I can find it in myself to be enthusiastic about all these changes , but I never wanted to be a game designer. That's why I buy a packaged game instead of building my own. So all I ask is wake me when you guys are done, and tell me what you want me to do. [:D]

Wakey WAKEY now go play! [:D]

Rasmus

[Walloc]

To Mike,

HR# 8 was altitude limiter, but my last opponent refused it so it didnt make that list. I just copied and pasted from there.

1, 2, MANY

Rasmus

[USSAmerica]

My Allied ally has nominated me to advocate for our side at the RoE negotiations.  My official position is that the negotiations may be starting to stray from one of the common themes of THE THREAD!!!, where "All who don't take themselves too seriously are welcome."  I have a very good recipe for rum punch and I am willing to provide for all hands.  [:D]

Let's make a short list of any unresolved points, get them knocked out or agree to cover them with the blanket policy of no gamey moves, and get on with having some fun!  Then, we can go to our respective corners for some hard core planning and come out punching.  [:D]

[AW1Steve]

Just a stupid suggestion , but has anyone considered a way to work the two day turns and eliminate the allies being setting ducks for 48 hours might be to use the Dec. 8 scenario? [&:]

[Mynok]

I'm 100% behind the general 'non-gamey' principle overriding everything. If it is truly an issue bombarding with LCUs without an accompanying attack, then I will abstain from such.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Just a stupid suggestion , but has anyone considered a way to work the two day turns and eliminate the allies being setting ducks for 48 hours might be to use the Dec. 8 scenario? [&:]

Interesting thought. Let me take a look at it tonight.

[scott64]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Will there be an actual game?

Yeah, someday. Maybe...

Y'all waiting for me to buy the game or something?

Or Something [:'(]

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I'm 100% behind the general 'non-gamey' principle overriding everything. If it is truly an issue bombarding with LCUs without an accompanying attack, then I will abstain from such.

According to James/BigJ62 it seemed he didnt think it was a problem from the thread where i presented the issue.

That said i was left with the feeling and that might be incorrect, that he didnt fully think it through.
In essense if u dont do any or very llittle damage in bombardment. What can the intend be for a player to use it.
1 recon is obviously one. Other could very well be to "use" the heightend supply usage.
What other motives is possible? (that said many players isnt really aware of it, but doesnt change the real effect tho)
I dont think that James got that the side effect of current rule is that u can use art to drain opponent supply for that intend only.
I cant find any justification for that, especially not if the intend was for art to have an effect used in conjunction with assult, hench the nerf of bombardment only damage. If that is the intend why should art have a supply drain effect in bombardment.
I used Luzon as an example. I used up just under 1400 supply per day being bombarded. That means all the starting supply on Luzon assuming its all moved into a Bataan type situasion is used up in 30-35 days. Bataan toke much longer.
I have no problem with ppl use tactics and strategy to make things go unhistoircal and faster. My problem is when its a game mechnanism that gets that effect. I mean opponents bombardment diasble 1 squad per bombardment so that in no way was helping on the winning of the battle. Supply effect did.
Ppl can, not saying many do, use the mechanism with that intend only and even if its not ur intend the effect is still there.
I mean air and naval bombarding on AF and ports was on purpose changed so u can get supply hits, so its in the game. Why should art have that side effect? when u nerfed bombardment
Doesnt make sense to me.

Just to clear that up so the statements is on my account and no one else,

Rasmus

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Are you guys SURE that you are not lawyers? If we get anymore into it . I'm going to expect a demand for alimoony next! [:(]

No, Steve, that comes when you and I split up. [:'(]

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Mynok and I had exactly 6 HR's in our CHS game and I don't even know if half of them came into play. [:D] "No gamey moves" covers 75% of most usual HR's. On the other hand, I don't mind playing with some HR's as long as they are explained to me, and I can understand what they mean. What do you think about my "evaluation" of Rasmus' input from his game?

It all sounds fine Mike. At this point , I'm at the point , that I really don't have much to say. Do what you all want , then explain it to me when your done. Tell me what you want and I'll do it. But I've got to wonder what it would be like to play monoploy with you guys.Would it have a two volume set of abridgements? [:(]

Nope. I make opponents mortgage their properties if they owe $1 though. Nothing personal, it's just business. [;)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Just a stupid suggestion , but has anyone considered a way to work the two day turns and eliminate the allies being setting ducks for 48 hours might be to use the Dec. 8 scenario? [&:]

Interesting thought. Let me take a look at it tonight.

I have a proposed suggestion to how we can get around this. I'm waiting for input from the Martian. It takes some time for subspace communications with the sun spots and all, so bear with us.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I'm 100% behind the general 'non-gamey' principle overriding everything.

Philosophically, I like this approach. The artillery example may not be the best example (I like the xAKL armada presaging SCTF activities better as a TRULY gamey example), but I'm with y'all in principle.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: USS America




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]

Amen, Yankee gaijin.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

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...

Yes. Let's proceed

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.

Here's a good rule of thumb: If they've got open canopies (Claudes, P-26s, Wildebeest, etc.) they can't fly above 15,000. Full stop. Otherwise, look at the individual planes and see where their MV rating drops off a cliff. If there's not an ideal answer, they can fly to 25,000 feet, except as detailed above (P-39s, P-40s, Nates restricted).

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

Mynok and I may have a solution to this. Wait one. Remember that Allied CAP is hard coded to be crap for turn one, so the rule may not be as restricting as you think.

ETA: That was bigger font than I originally intended. Sorry for the eye strain...[X(]

[USSAmerica]

Here's the new short list:

I have proposed replacing our HR 1 with the working shared by Rasmus as it's more concise:

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.

Replaced with:

Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for garrison purposes only to max 4 hexes from the Thai border.
Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate. Is this agreeable?

2.  No Strat Bombing until '43 and none to targets in China until '44.  Agreed unless I hear an objection.

3.  Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf:  "Simply: no fighter sweeps higher then the ALT with the second best MVR value"  Objections?

He later states that there is no need to limit CAP "target" or "patrol" altitude for various reasons. 

4.  Need to define limits and exceptions for Allied TF's on turns 1 & 2 if port strikes other than Pearl Harbor are allowed.
One proposal on the table is to look at the Dec 8th start.  Another being cooked up by the Japs.

If you guys agree with 1 - 3, then we only need a solution for #4.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America
Then, we can go to our respective corners for some hard core planning and come out punching.  [:D]

Mike, I used to play the board game of "Civilization". Related to, but distinct from Sid Meier's classic computer game. One traded cards for papyrus or what not. "Trading" of calamities was part of the fun too. This amounted to bald faced lying to one's trading partner while you traded them two gems and one 'plague' card instead of the three promised gem cards.

The trading / movement / purchasing of civilization advancements was dictated by phases. One HAD TO complete one phase before moving on. However, the whining ("I got BOTH and earthquake AND a religious uprising card, you malicious bastards!" [:D]) became so commonplace and spread across all phases that we adopted a HR to forestall this behavior. We installed a 'whining phase' whereby all players could simultaneously list their grievances with their various calamities, general poor doing, cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of the others, crappy die rolls, etc. It became one of the highlights of the game and induced much merriment.

So, I reserve the right to respect this tradition and hereby request the indulgence of the others for a distinct 'whining phase' in our game moving forward. I'll do my level best to contribute. I know that Steve will do fine too. [:'(]

[USSAmerica]

Crossed posts again. [:D]

If you guys are both online, jump into the Matrix Chat room....maybe we can hash out this last bit.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Here's the new short list:

I have proposed replacing our HR 1 with the working shared by Rasmus as it's more concise:

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.

Replaced with:

Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for garrison purposes only to max 4 hexes from the Thai border.
Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate. Is this agreeable?

Thai forces operating within four hexes of the Thai border should not necessarily be relegated to garrison duty. Same with restricted Indian troops operating within 4 hexes of the Indian frontier.

2.  No Strat Bombing until '43 and none to targets in China until '44.  Agreed unless I hear an objection.

OK.

3.  Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf:  "Simply: no fighter sweeps higher then the ALT with the second best MVR value"  Objections?

He later states that there is no need to limit CAP "target" or "patrol" altitude for various reasons.

OK.

4.  Need to define limits and exceptions for Allied TF's on turns 1 & 2 if port strikes other than Pearl Harbor are allowed.
One proposal on the table is to look at the Dec 8th start.  Another being cooked up by the Japs.

If you guys agree with 1 - 3, then we only need a solution for #4.

Awaiting sunspot dissipation.

[USSAmerica]

Based on high level negotiations the following Rules of Engagement will be used, pending Mynok's agreement to #4.

Proposed HR's:

1. Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for any purposes to max 4 hexes from the Thai border. Same for Indian troops within 4 hexes of Indian border. Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 against targets in China.

3. Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf: "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.

4. Turn 1 & 2: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created anywhere except Manila. Manila is limited to having 50% of each ship type in port ordered to sea. Not "keep 10 PT's in port and ship out 10 DD's". Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). Japan will not hunt down US CV TF's on turn 1 & 2.

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.

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

[thegreatwent]

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

Any duels of honor will be fought at a appointed time and place with seconds present. Weapons will be limited to either rubber chickens or fish.

Loser responsible for purchasing the first shout afterwords.[:D]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Based on high level negotiations the following Rules of Engagement will be used, pending Mynok's agreement to #4.

Proposed HR's:

1. Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for any purposes to max 4 hexes from the Thai border. Same for Indian troops within 4 hexes of Indian border. Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 against targets in China.

3. Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf: "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.

4. Turn 1 & 2: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created anywhere except Manila. Manila is limited to having 50% of each ship type in port ordered to sea. Not "keep 10 PT's in port and ship out 10 DD's". Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). Japan will not hunt down US CV TF's on turn 1 & 2.

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.

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

I'm agreed on all points. You may rest easy on the two day port attack issue. It is resolved. I will be testing my plans against the AI to ensure they meet the agreed upon requirements.

The bombardment-only attacks by LCUs should be handled in the spirit of non-gameyness IMO. We don't really have enough data to make a hard HR on it, but if something strange is occurring, let's just bring it up to everyone and work it out in the spirit of a Thread war.

The Imperial Japanese are now hard at work on their operational plans under the auspices of these HRs. Brace for impact!