American Torpedoes

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

I dunno, I'd hafta look at the Ground W-draw screen again. Didn't seem like an immensity to me.

It does not need to be.

As Japanese you have to set target dates and keep timelines. To get the fuel production up and running and to give enough time to set up a defensive perimeter (or several FWIIW) for when the Allied counterattack begins.
Every unit not disappearing is another roadblock to overcome. Every eng squad builds up forts faster. Most of the units are small and second rate, but they prevent the Japanese from keeping timelines and to take freebees. Same for air units, or ships.

Still, the central point is Ahistorical is Ahistorical. I agreed to a Scen2 game with very few HRs. Esteemed opponent pulled a Mersing, which I had forgotten about. Tough, get used to it, crybaby.

I don't think No Ws would be a crusher - mebbe I'm wrong.

Scen2 is different. I never talk about Scen2 if a discussion revolves around additional help for the Japanese. Scen2 IS the additional help already. It is a fantasy scenario and nothing of what I have said above applies to it.

In Scen1 OTOH, what Allied players often love to forget, 20/20 hindsight works stronger for the Allies than for the JApanese and this including PDU ON. I don´t think I am such a superior Allied player compared to the rest that I am the only one who notices that.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: HexHead

ORIGINAL: LoBaron




Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating.

Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff?

Are you kidding? Ships is only part of it. Countless air units, and most of all masses of LCUs get withdrawn. You bet that makes a difference.

And I might add that it is a piece of cake compared to managing the Japanese industry and avoid that single mistake that makes you lose the war...

Basically, you should give pretty much any advantage to you IJN partner that you can. All things being equal, they will need it and you will have the pleasure of going deeper into the game. I would never do Quiet China though.

My only experience has been as the Allies playing scen #2. If I were playing stock it is the only one I would want to play. It is a bit hairy in 42 and 43, but in the end much more exciting with the realistic expectation that you will have a challenging fun game that can go deep into 1945. I have said it before and will say it again, if the Allied player keeps his cool and his carriers intact, there is no situation that he can't recover from, and with players of equal skill-he should always win.

I did a lot of whining about the edge that my Japanese opponents had but that was when I was stuck in 1942 and 43. Now I am a bit embarrassed about my complaining. Those of you who have got to 45 in a game know what I am saying. The Allies just get so much stuff from mid 44 on that it is really impossible to use it all. And unless you really screw the pooch, you pretty much can whip butt anywhere you want. Just ask Viperpol who had played a great game from the Japanese side in our campaign. Heck, a vanilla US Infantry division has 27 pershing tanks and 27 Sherman 105 support tanks in 1945. Try to find two Japanese divisions that can stand up to it. And I am about to turn my Soviet dogs loose on Ark. You should see what a Soviet Mech corps looks like. It is unholy with about 800 AV for a single unit!

Next campaign for me will be one of the Babes.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Could not agree more!~ [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: HexHead




Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff?

Are you kidding? Ships is only part of it. Countless air units, and most of all masses of LCUs get withdrawn. You bet that makes a difference.

And I might add that it is a piece of cake compared to managing the Japanese industry and avoid that single mistake that makes you lose the war...

Basically, you should give pretty much any advantage to you IJN partner that you can. All things being equal, they will need it and you will have the pleasure of going deeper into the game. I would never do quite China though.

But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander. NOTHING in war is ever equal. Unless you are trying "an experiment" , when you mess with the order , you mess with reality. An equivalent would be giving Lee 50,000 more men at Gettysburg. What would that prove?

If you want an equal game , try chess. If you want the near ultimate challenge , try WITP AE. [:)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander.

Nooooo.... The point of the game is for both parties to have fun. What specific mental gymnastics you go through to validate your gameplay fun factor is up to you. If it takes you pretending that you're better than the real life commander, then that's how you motivate yourself. Other people's motives(including mine own) vary.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander.

Nooooo.... The point of the game is for both parties to have fun. What specific mental gymnastics you go through to validate your gameplay fun factor is up to you. If it takes you pretending that you're better than the real life commander, then that's how you motivate yourself. Other people's motives(including mine own) vary.

Stacking the deck against your opponent as much as possible is your definition of "having fun"? Hmmmmm....[:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

CB and I have a similar game going.....

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

I set them to..... minus 60 days! No plus... If only. You could check by opening the preferences screen, I think [:'(].


This gives me an opportunity to say that I think a lot of HRs are the product of laziness, mostly on the part of the Japanese player. Like no strat bombing until '43, or only in certain areas. Don't want to get strat bombed? Do something to prevent it. The only rule I've considered is something about a max altitude (dogfights with prop engines at 35k feet? Heh.), but when you're playing with no other rules it feels silly to play with just one... Better to just work around the game engine entirely at that point.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

The factory management actually isn't so hard, and honestly once you've got your stuff set up it's just a matter of doing tweaks here and there. Far less involved than the late war Allies. I think you should take the plunge and start a game as the IJ against the AI! Sink all those Allied ships, it's fun! I promise.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander.

Nooooo.... The point of the game is for both parties to have fun. What specific mental gymnastics you go through to validate your gameplay fun factor is up to you. If it takes you pretending that you're better than the real life commander, then that's how you motivate yourself. Other people's motives(including mine own) vary.

My very point CB. A good game with a turn about every day is a four year commitment. I already know how the thing turned out historically. I want a good competitive game that reflects the historical characteristics of the war but I want a fun game as well. And I don't want my opponent to feel like he is playing with a losing hand from the start. (Cause believe me, that was the case with Japan [;)]) Good hard fought games build good friendships. Always been that way.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

The factory management actually isn't so hard, and honestly once you've got your stuff set up it's just a matter of doing tweaks here and there. Far less involved than the late war Allies. I think you should take the plunge and start a game as the IJ against the AI! Sink all those Allied ships, it's fun! I promise.

OK. You've sold me. I'm starting a AI game. I trust you'll be available for advice? [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CB and I have a similar game going.....

But with HRs?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

I set them to..... minus 60 days! No plus... If only. You could check by opening the preferences screen, I think [:'(].


This gives me an opportunity to say that I think a lot of HRs are the product of laziness, mostly on the part of the Japanese player. Like no strat bombing until '43, or only in certain areas. Don't want to get strat bombed? Do something to prevent it. The only rule I've considered is something about a max altitude (dogfights with prop engines at 35k feet? Heh.), but when you're playing with no other rules it feels silly to play with just one... Better to just work around the game engine entirely at that point.

I'm going for the record on maxed nested quotes. [:)]

See what fun settings can be? [:)] I hope you re-set them. But if you didn't, I assume you did. Infinite regression. Mirror-world!

Let me add here, for the record and for the peanut gallery, Lokasenna is pressing me all over the map. I may come to regret my cavalier attitude, especially on R&D. Auto-victory is certainly not off the table for him at all in mid-Feb. 1942. If he gets it we'll stop, I'll shake his virtual hand, and we'll see about another match. If he doesn't get it we'll play on and things will improve for me OOB-wise. So far there hasn't been one email whine from either of us and the game is booming along and is a lot of fun. FUN.

And no CPA-in-the-Pacific every turn as I consult my clipboard of HRs and examine each and every unit for a red card.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CB and I have a similar game going.....

But with HRs?

Yes.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

I set them to..... minus 60 days! No plus... If only. You could check by opening the preferences screen, I think [:'(].


This gives me an opportunity to say that I think a lot of HRs are the product of laziness, mostly on the part of the Japanese player. Like no strat bombing until '43, or only in certain areas. Don't want to get strat bombed? Do something to prevent it. The only rule I've considered is something about a max altitude (dogfights with prop engines at 35k feet? Heh.), but when you're playing with no other rules it feels silly to play with just one... Better to just work around the game engine entirely at that point.

I'm going for the record on maxed nested quotes. [:)]

See what fun settings can be? [:)] I hope you re-set them. But if you didn't, I assume you did. Infinite regression. Mirror-world!

Let me add here, for the record and for the peanut gallery, Lokasenna is pressing me all over the map. I may come to regret my cavalier attitude, especially on R&D. Auto-victory is certainly not off the table for him at all in mid-Feb. 1942. If he gets it we'll stop, I'll shake his virtual hand, and we'll see about another match. If he doesn't get it we'll play on and things will improve for me OOB-wise. So far there hasn't been one email whine from either of us and the game is booming along and is a lot of fun. FUN.

And no CPA-in-the-Pacific every turn as I consult my clipboard of HRs and examine each and every unit for a red card.

You mean February 1943? Because we're halfway through February 1942 already, and I don't think I can go from 1.1:1 VPs to 4:1 in just 2 weeks of game time. I'm not as optimistic about my February 1943 VP ratio, but a lot can happen in '42 I guess... We'll see! Even if I did reach supposed AV, I wouldn't see the war as over - just with a bigger cushion [;)]. Though I think I need to go look up VP values now, and see just where my total would be sitting if I can get to my perimeter goals...

I've seen more nested comments, but not on this board.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve





surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

The factory management actually isn't so hard, and honestly once you've got your stuff set up it's just a matter of doing tweaks here and there. Far less involved than the late war Allies. I think you should take the plunge and start a game as the IJ against the AI! Sink all those Allied ships, it's fun! I promise.

OK. You've sold me. I'm starting a AI game. I trust you'll be available for advice? [:)]

Me and the other 10 people here that play as Japan [8D].