Matrix Games Forums

If your transport fleets have "do not retire" orders they should not turn back for Truk, no matter how hard they are hit.

When ships numbers go red from damage, yes they will automtic move to home port. No Kamikaze ship captains. I don´t think that´s a bug but designed that way.

But he doesn´t say that, he says his transports didn´t move at all in route to the auto victory site and got bombed.

4 TFs didn;t move and the rest were strung out from Rockhampton. Needless to say, Todd bombed most of them. I have seen this bug before, but never to this degree.

He got caught.

But you warned him Miller.

Only Luganville is viable, forget the others. You MUST take Efate in strength as well otherwise his short ranged LBA flying from there will crucify your resupply convoys.

The Australian coast, as you mention about with Luganville & Efate, has too many big airfields for carrier air to keep closed for the transports to unload.

You guys are all off base.  If anyone has the right to say something here it's me.

There is no winner of this game only 2 losers.

My recon showed what Nomad claimed and we went back and tried it again to no avail.  A bug that won't let go killed this game, not people.

Going for an auto victory is part of the game and it also keeps the Allied player honest.  The Allies must properly garrison bases instead of throwing everything forward or pay the piper.

I'd play against Nomad again (WITP next?) in a heartbeat so stop with the negatives here as you guys are off base.

Whatever you say Todd. Keeping the Allied player honest could have easily been done with minimum garrison requirements without resorting to creating scenarios based on Japanese Fan Boy Wet Dreams and enticing Japanese players to "go for broke" ruining games in the process.

So your issue is with Matrix for creating an auto victory in the first place, not with those who play the game and utilize that option.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

So your issue is with Matrix for creating an auto victory in the first place, not with those who play the game and utilize that option.

Well, I would think GG and 2x3 are more responsible for the game content than Matrix, but I think you are well aware of my viewpoints regarding players who attempt to win without going the distance and standing up like a man to take their lumps after enjoying their own heyday of dishing them out.

Anyone who wants to play a game where they get an overwhelming advantage in the beginning, allowing them to beat up on their opponent, ought to be man enough to stand up and take it in return when the tide turns. How many Japanese players going for broke actually play the game out to the end after failing at their bid for autovictory and how many simply throw in the towel, declaring their opponent the "winner" while robbing their opponent of his promise for his own heyday?

...but is there any point to playing a game where your opponent is helpless?  The Allies have enough strength to make auto victory attempts a dicey thing while the Japanese are so weak in comparison in '43 that the outcome is almost a given.

I have not had the honor to play Tocaff, but I have recently finished a game against Nomad. I think any claims, stated or implied, that he is the type of player to simply quit when things go against him are way off base. It is easy to say, from the US point of view, to keep going no matter what. I think most games will end in mid 43 one way or the other from what I am seeing. In a game against a different player, I lost 400+ planes, and did not get a single hit on the US carrier group. When things get to that stage, what is the use. You salute the US for a game well played, swallow your defeat, and find another game.
 
The point for me when playing the US is not to "repay" Japan for knocking me around for 8 months. This is a game, to be enjoyable for both players, or what is the point?
 
 

Anyone who wants to play a game where they get an overwhelming advantage in the beginning, allowing them to beat up on their opponent, ought to be man enough to stand up and take it in return when the tide turns. How many Japanese players going for broke actually play the game out to the end after failing at their bid for autovictory and how many simply throw in the towel, declaring their opponent the "winner" while robbing their opponent of his promise for his own heyday?

I myself never try to win against the Allies. I take more than 12 months game time preparing for the last 6 months of the game.

The only thing in my mind on May 1st 1942 is winning a ¨draw¨ on Jan.1st 1944. Anything less than a ¨victory¨ for the Allies is a loss for the Allies in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: borner

I have not had the honor to play Tocaff, but I have recently finished a game against Nomad. I think any claims, stated or implied, that he is the type of player to simply quit when things go against him are way off base. It is easy to say, from the US point of view, to keep going no matter what. I think most games will end in mid 43 one way or the other from what I am seeing. In a game against a different player, I lost 400+ planes, and did not get a single hit on the US carrier group. When things get to that stage, what is the use. You salute the US for a game well played, swallow your defeat, and find another game.

The point for me when playing the US is not to "repay" Japan for knocking me around for 8 months. This is a game, to be enjoyable for both players, or what is the point?

And how can it be enjoyable to get beat up and then be denied the oppurtunity to administer a beating in return?

ORIGINAL: Ike99


I myself never try to win against the Allies. I take more than 12 months game time preparing for the last 6 months of the game.

The only thing in my mind on May 1st 1942 is winning a ¨draw¨ on Jan.1st 1944. Anything less than a ¨victory¨ for the Allies is a loss for the Allies in my opinion.

Ike, while you and I seem to disagree about almost everything on a fundamental level, this is one area where I actually admire and respect you. You play the Japanese in scenario 16 with all the historical limitations on their forces. You don't refuse to play without the Wet Dream of the entire KB with no Midway losses. If as Todd points out, the AV was included in the game to keep the Allies honest, then it should be exactly that and NOT the reason for playing the game in the first place. The point of the game is supposed to be playing the campaign to the end of 1943 and THEN assessing who won.

Todd tries to make the point that no one would want to play the Japanese if there only prospect is to be beaten into the ground. The same holds true for the Allies. Who would want to play them if their only prospect is to be beaten into the ground?

I've been playing wargames for 35 years. I have played a veritaable plethora of games where one sides starts disdvantaged, weathers a beating, and then builds up to enjoy the advantage and gets an opportunity to administer a counter beating. Far, far too many times I have seen the side that enjoys the earlly advantage shoot their bolt and then toss in the towel and deny their opponent his own "happy time". This isn't a syndrome unique to Uncommon Valor. Anytime two players agree to a game with this format, the player taking the weaker side in the beginning is completely dependant upon the integrity and committment to go the distance of their opponent. Once side has a guarantee for a "happy time" , but the other has to take it on FAITH that he will ever get a "happy time".

I have been off line and in and out for a couple of days - rebuilt my operating system.
First, I would like to thank Todd for understanding that something happened. Maybe I
messed up orders, I am not above making mistakes - but it is sometimes hard to
make sure.

Second, I really do not care what you all think.

Third, I advertised in the opponents wanted that I was going to be trying for an
autovictory. I know that some of you do not like that aspect of the game, so I
wanted to be truthful and tell my future opponent exactly what I intended to do.
What is interesting is that when the the game first came out, autovictory was the
"accepted" method, expecially for senario 17 and then for the patch added senario
19. This is a game based on events that happened 1 May 1942 to 31 December 1943.
It is not supposed to be a history lesson.

I want to thank Todd again, and I will have him on my list of possible opponents when
WitP-AE is available.

And how can it be enjoyable to get beat up and then be denied the oppurtunity to administer a beating in return?
 
 
Simple actually. I play the game for the enjoyment of it. If I am able to hold off Japan to the point victory is assured, that in itself is a victory. Why go through 3-4 months of uncontested landings just to get "revenge" for Japan not being able to make full use of his advantages.
 
 

I play the game until both sides concur that the outcome is etched in stone.  I understand the Allied player having fun beating up on the Japanese and flexing all of that muscle in 1943, to a point.  There is no reason to continue a game where the Japanese becomes punch drunk and is helpless.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I play the game until both sides concur that the outcome is etched in stone.  I understand the Allied player having fun beating up on the Japanese and flexing all of that muscle in 1943, to a point.  There is no reason to continue a game where the Japanese becomes punch drunk and is helpless.

If there is no reason to continue a game when the Japanese are punch drunk and helpless then why is there even a reason to start one if the outcome will be a punch drunk, helpless and knocked right out of the game by autovictory Allied side? Why is it so difficult for others to grasp this point?

The difference is that a punch drunk Japanese side has no, 0, chance and the Allies always have at least a chance.  The difference is the challenge or lack of it.

Hans, if I did not have too many games going right now, I would love to challenge you to a game, where you as Japan, commit to pay all the way through 1943. Just curious, but how many times have you played Japan?
 
 

I believe that it takes a special type of opponent to be willing to play months worth of turns as the Japanese in 1943 being able to do very little except watch passively as you get clobbered.  To be anything else is just offering up additional targets worth more VPs to the Allied player.

[/quote]

I've been playing wargames for 35 years. I have played a veritaable plethora of games where one sides starts disdvantaged, weathers a beating, and then builds up to enjoy the advantage and gets an opportunity to administer a counter beating. Far, far too many times I have seen the side that enjoys the earlly advantage shoot their bolt and then toss in the towel and deny their opponent his own "happy time". This isn't a syndrome unique to Uncommon Valor. Anytime two players agree to a game with this format, the player taking the weaker side in the beginning is completely dependant upon the integrity and committment to go the distance of their opponent. Once side has a guarantee for a "happy time" , but the other has to take it on FAITH that he will ever get a "happy time".

[/quote]

In a similar note, the view at WiFcon is "The axis gets to have fun the first half of the game. The allies need to have fun in the 2nd half."