AE is for AFBs

[Hanzberger]

Why even play the damm game then.  I think FBS is right.  If the Japan player plays well he can walk away with his head held high.  I also see one thing lacking in all these forums which I am not gonna bring up and it is killing me to keep it to my self.  If your an experienced Japan player PM me and we will discuss as I don't know if I am right or wrong.  [:'(]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Mike, you have to look at the context of my variant. It's intended to be similar to Totaler Krieg--the Japanese player is allowed to make a choice between limited and total war. As long as he doesn't trip the triggers for total war, he has a chance. If he decides that he wants it all, he has to deal with the American response. In reality Yamamoto decided to hit Pearl Harbor and flipped the bozo bit. But he had announced he would resign if not given his way.

As I Said...

"I've no quibble over the notion of playing around with "limited war" possibilities. I just find your's somewhat too limiting for the Allies. They smack more of Japanese "wishful thinking" than reality in my eyes. But if you and an opponant can agree on your house rules, then may both enjoy the experience.

But I have some severe doubts that Japan had the faintest idea what America's "triggers for total war" were. They evidently thought that PH would be "OK" as long as they broke off negotiations 30 minutes ahead of time. I have great doubt such a distinction would have made a damned bit of difference to Americans.

But to each his own. Personally I think the only way for Japan to have maintained any control over war with America would have been to avoid all attacks on any US territory. And given Roosevelt's moves to war against Germany (Lend Lease, the "Neutrality Patrols", etc), that wouldn't have done it for long..., merely handed the initiative to the USA. But such an event would justify your "war weariness" postulation. I suppose it's a matter of perspective and preference.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin

Mike, you have to look at the context of my variant. It's intended to be similar to Totaler Krieg--the Japanese player is allowed to make a choice between limited and total war. As long as he doesn't trip the triggers for total war, he has a chance. If he decides that he wants it all, he has to deal with the American response. In reality Yamamoto decided to hit Pearl Harbor and flipped the bozo bit. But he had announced he would resign if not given his way.

As I Said...

"I've no quibble over the notion of playing around with "limited war" possibilities. I just find your's somewhat too limiting for the Allies. They smack more of Japanese "wishful thinking" than reality in my eyes. But if you and an opponant can agree on your house rules, then may both enjoy the experience.

But I have some severe doubts that Japan had the faintest idea what America's "triggers for total war" were. They evidently thought that PH would be "OK" as long as they broke off negotiations 30 minutes ahead of time. I have great doubt such a distinction would have made a damned bit of difference to Americans.

But to each his own. Personally I think the only way for Japan to have maintained any control over war with America would have been to avoid all attacks on any US territory. And given Roosevelt's moves to war against Germany (Lend Lease, the "Neutrality Patrols", etc), that wouldn't have done it for long..., merely handed the initiative to the USA. But such an event would justify your "war weariness" postulation. I suppose it's a matter of perspective and preference.

I doubt I'm really in disagreement with you. I've defined a limited war scenario that would encourage the Allied player to try to force events. (It was the war as both sides expected it to play out.) What would it have taken to trigger? I don't know, but the USN admirals were *very* happy that the IJN had managed to make the American public angry at Japan.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin
I doubt I'm really in disagreement with you. I've defined a limited war scenario that would encourage the Allied player to try to force events. (It was the war as both sides expected it to play out.) What would it have taken to trigger? I don't know, but the USN admirals were *very* happy that the IJN had managed to make the American public angry at Japan.

That was pretty much my original contention as well. Disagreement was never about the idea..., simply that I felt you had set the "degree of difficulty" for the Allies at an impossibly high level (you gotta at least allow time for the ships of the pre-war Naval Bills to actually arrive in play). Given that historically the Allies didn't even begin the Central Pacific Offensive until Tarawa in November of 1943, failure to complete it by January 1944 seems an incredibly tight schedule.

Having some extra old BB's (from PH) may be fun..., but they can't do the vital tasks of the "Fleet Train", Amphibious Assets, and infrastructure units that arrive in 1944. Asking the Allied Player to preform the tasks of 1944-45 with the assets of 1942-43 seems excessive. Would make more sense (to me) if you timed your limits from the date of the first American Counter-Offensive (Guadalcanal historically) than the war's start. After all, that only happened because of the result of Midway (hardly a likely game event).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin
I doubt I'm really in disagreement with you. I've defined a limited war scenario that would encourage the Allied player to try to force events. (It was the war as both sides expected it to play out.) What would it have taken to trigger? I don't know, but the USN admirals were *very* happy that the IJN had managed to make the American public angry at Japan.

That was pretty much my original contention as well. Disagreement was never about the idea..., simply that I felt you had set the "degree of difficulty" for the Allies at an impossibly high level (you gotta at least allow time for the ships of the pre-war Naval Bills to actually arrive in play). Given that historically the Allies didn't even begin the Central Pacific Offensive until Tarawa in November of 1943, failure to complete it by January 1944 seems an incredibly tight schedule.

Having some extra old BB's (from PH) may be fun..., but they can't do the vital tasks of the "Fleet Train", Amphibious Assets, and infrastructure units that arrive in 1944. Asking the Allied Player to preform the tasks of 1944-45 with the assets of 1942-43 seems excessive. Would make more sense (to me) if you timed your limits from the date of the first American Counter-Offensive (Guadalcanal historically) than the war's start. After all, that only happened because of the result of Midway (hardly a likely game event).

The draw date I give is not much earlier than we were really into Okinawa. So all the Allies have to do to win the limited war is push a bit faster than they actually went. Given an intact Battle Fleet, the USN admirals figured they could do it. Perhaps it would have been a bit challenging, but with more aggressiveness, who knows what might have happened? War Plan Orange had landings planned in the Eastern Mandates a few short months after the start of the war!, instead of late 1943!

And I have seen AARs where the Allies were able to return to the Philippines in 1942...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The draw date I give is not much earlier than we were really into Okinawa. So all the Allies have to do to win the limited war is push a bit faster than they actually went. Given an intact Battle Fleet, the USN admirals figured they could do it. Perhaps it would have been a bit challenging, but with more aggressiveness, who knows what might have happened? War Plan Orange had landings planned in the Eastern Mandates a few short months after the start of the war!, instead of late 1943! All of which was based on the idea of a "Battleship dominated Conflict" as postulated in the early 1920's..., and not the "Carrier/Aircraft dominated Conflict" of the early 1940's. By then "Warplan Orange" had long been shelved in favor of "Rainbow Five".

And I have seen AARs where the Allies were able to return to the Philippines in 1942...,and I have seen AAR's where Australia, China, and India were overrun by 1943. Lots of things can happen in the game..., but I think a scenario should be based on the most common outcomes rather than the extremes.

Probably best to end this by simply saying that we disagree over what constitutes a reasonable and rational timing and achievement level for such a scenario. [:)] Though I'd be willing to go with "I'm right and you're wrong" if you insist... [:D][:D][:D][:D]

[m10bob]

For some folks, the game itself is a huge undertaking, and those gamers may not wish to be burdened with "house rules", (or even care to enforce them).

An easy alternative might be to just agree with a time limit before the game starts, and tally the points at that time? Might figure "x" amount of points for slight,marginal, decisive victory levels as well.

This is of course a formula familiar to likely all gamers?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
An easy alternative might be to just agree with a time limit before the game starts, and tally the points at that time? Might figure "x" amount of points for slight,marginal, decisive victory levels as well.

This is of course a formula familiar to likely all gamers?

The problem with this is that it is dependent on someone's decision as to what constitutes a "victory point"..., or a "level of victory". No matter who does it, it's going to be an arbitrary number based on one person's assessment of the factors.

I almost prefer Jack Radey's thinking. "If you both feel you did well with what you had, it's a draw" (go get a sixpack and enjoy telling each other "war stories"). "If one of you kicked the snot out of the other, he won" (and can feel good about himself while the other plots his revenge). It's simple, and it doesn't lead to "gamey" play aimed at VP's rather than real tactics.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob
An easy alternative might be to just agree with a time limit before the game starts, and tally the points at that time? Might figure "x" amount of points for slight,marginal, decisive victory levels as well.

This is of course a formula familiar to likely all gamers?

The problem with this is that it is dependent on someone's decision as to what constitutes a "victory point"..., or a "level of victory". No matter who does it, it's going to be an arbitrary number based on one person's assessment of the factors.

Mike, I was referring to the "victory points" as displayed in game, in the intel screen..

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob
An easy alternative might be to just agree with a time limit before the game starts, and tally the points at that time? Might figure "x" amount of points for slight,marginal, decisive victory levels as well.

This is of course a formula familiar to likely all gamers?

The problem with this is that it is dependent on someone's decision as to what constitutes a "victory point"..., or a "level of victory". No matter who does it, it's going to be an arbitrary number based on one person's assessment of the factors.

Mike, I was referring to the "victory points" as displayed in game, in the intel screen..

I understand..., but are you saying those aren't totally arbitrary and based on one person's opinion? My point was that a formula mutually agreed on by you and your opponant is less likely to produce arguements..., which is the basis for most "House Rules". And that doing away with any consideration of "victory points" might actually produce a better and more enjoyable game with fewer "gamey" moves.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl





The problem with this is that it is dependent on someone's decision as to what constitutes a "victory point"..., or a "level of victory". No matter who does it, it's going to be an arbitrary number based on one person's assessment of the factors.

Mike, I was referring to the "victory points" as displayed in game, in the intel screen..

I understand..., but are you saying those aren't totally arbitrary and based on one person's opinion? My point was that a formula mutually agreed on by you and your opponant is less likely to produce arguements..., which is the basis for most "House Rules". And that doing away with any consideration of "victory points" might actually produce a better and more enjoyable game with fewer "gamey" moves.

Dunno Mike..Don't know how many people were involved in creating that victory point tall, nor what all is involved..Just know it is a "consistent and uniform" measurement, in every scenerio of the game, and is "free of charge" and "in place"..

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Dunno Mike..Don't know how many people were involved in creating that victory point tally, nor what all is involved..Just know it is a "consistent and uniform" measurement, in every scenerio of the game, and is "free of charge" and "in place"..

Well, there are three folks at 2by3 Games, so two of them might have fiddled with victory points. And I don't think "consistent and uniform" precludes being "consistently and uniformly" wrong. But if you like them..., use them.

I'm just saying that there are other ways of playing the game, and some folks find them more satisfying than the pursuit of arbitrary "victory points".

[witpqs]

Bob,

While I don't knock the victory points in the game, neither do I have faith in them. I'm not certain they are so consistent when it comes to base values - and how could they be? The value of many bases (strategically within the game) depends more on the strategy that the players choose than any pre-game conjecture. I suppose that bases could be assigned victory points based solely upon political value at the time. The problem there is that doing so might make the 'balance' aspect of the point system real 'un'-balanced!

There are lots of other difficulties with a point system for a game like this - not necessarily any kind of failure in making the point system for WITP & AE, just inevitable shortcomings.

I think the six-pack suggestion is spot on! [:)]

[Jonathan Pollard]

I think a case can be made that AE = Australian fan boy Edition. Australian troops can train up to a basic experience value of 65 whereas the British and New Zealand dunces will never get past 55, and the really dense Canadians won't go beyond 50. (p. 187 of the manual).

[jrcar]

Which is exactly how it should be

Actually we did have a very rigorous training for the war, and when the Divisions came home they were put through a lot of training, based on experience fighting the Japanese to that point. Most of that training was useful, some was not, but the fact was we instigated a strong training regime based on lesson learned in the Jungles of Malaya, feedback from people who had lived in PNG and the Solomons, and at least some intellectual effort.

This is a tradition we had from WW1, and carry through to today in our Army.

Not saying that the other Armies didn't, they did, but from what I've read ours tended to be more realistic and practical (even then the troops complained that the training could have been better).

We had the benefit though of a volunteer Army overseas, and there was a noted marked decline in basic troop quality from 1944 onwards noted in the battalion diaries, so not everyone could be a super soldier!

Cheers

Rob

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

I think a case can be made that AE = Australian fan boy Edition. Australian troops can train up to a basic experience value of 65 whereas the British and New Zealand dunces will never get past 55, and the really dense Canadians won't go beyond 50. (p. 187 of the manual).

[jrcar]

Did anyone mention the strong Aussie presence on the AE team [:D]

Cheers

Rob

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Did anyone mention the strong Aussie presence on the AE team [:D]

Cheers

Rob

We try to keep it hush hush. Reputations to think of after all. [:'(]

[DuckofTindalos]

They're one of the two main reasons for the huge alcohol budget. The other reason being LogBoy...[:'(]

[jrcar]

Budget?! We had a Budget?!

cheers

Rob

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

They're one of the two main reasons for the huge alcohol budget. The other reason being LogBoy...[:'(]

Alcohol budget? No one ever told me about that! I can code! I did software for ten years! One of my two degrees is in computer science! Sign me up. So do you have someone in Ireland actually ship me my Guinness or do I buy it here and submit my receipts?