Matrix Games Forums

In my first PBEM in the old WITP I made the same mistake of saying "Oh, hey, let's not worry about house rules, lets just have a Gentlemans agreement to 'Play Historically'"

Needless to say it ruined that PBEM.
Agreeing to play historically without house rules is the best way to ensure you sow the seeds for future argument with your PBEM opponent because, unless you are planning to re-enact the second world war - blow by blow - EVERYTHING you do will by ahistoric to some extent.


I believe that the only legitimate claim you have to unfair play is if you believe the the true purpose of your opponent putting his carriers near wake was to hunt your CV's.
If you believe your opponent when he says that the reason for them being there was to protect an amphibious landing, then you have NO grounds to complain.
The Japanese commander can deploy his forces where he wants, when he wants. As can you.

Let me pose this - let's say that you made the same move of running west towards Wake and he had not deployed any carriers there.
If Lex had stumbled upon the invasion force and sunk it would you be happy for your opponent to make the same argument that YOUR move of sending a carrier to Wake on turn 1 was ahistoric and against the spirit of the game?

The problem with your argument that your essentially saying to your opponent that any time you take losses from anything other than historical units in a historical location at a historical time you're going to cry foul.

Consider the can of worms you're opening.

What are you going to say when the KB goes south in the 3rd week of Dec 41 to support an invasion of PM?
What about when he rolls an armoured corps into Perth......or Auckland?
More over how will you react when he turns your argument back on you? When he attacks Rangoon, for example, and finds the 18th British Div there and says "Hey, what are you doing, they are meant to be in Singapore.....you're not playing historically!!"

You're mad that he used ahistoric knowledge to help him decide to screen his Wake invasion.

But you think nothing of using your ahistoric knowledge to have Lex dodge the expected KB track and go raiding to the west?

Dobey has a legit point...to an extent...

Obviously when we say historical game (and I would agree what is permissible can easily vary even between well meaning opponents)
what happens from turn 2 will of course be different.

That said, there is a sort of a gentleman`s agreement that Japan CVs be near major allied ports (PH, Manila, Singers) for an opening attack.[&:]

Whatever the lame, pathetic excuse (covering those all important Wake landings) sticking a few CVs near Wake will be seen as CV hunting. [:-]It clearly
puts the KB into a position to much go after the US CVs much quicker (and this is bases on the pre knowledge that Japan did not have of where those CVs were).[:@]

Of course, any fool who bumbles back to PH area after a PH KB attack is looking for trouble, but JFB who is bagging US CVs at Wake on turn 1 is CV hunting.[:(]
If both players are cool with it that is fine, but call it what it is.. CV hunting. Calling anything else...Is dishonest. (really, US CVs near Wake on turn 1...I never
would have guessed it)[X(]

At the same time, AFBs should make it clear that historicallish games (as opposed to historical games which have no real meaning as per Mr Dobeys comments)
should mean no whacking US CVs turn 1.[8|]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

If the Japanese player is not allowed any prior knowledge, then neither should the Allied player.

Sadly, that's not how things work. Players already have the benefit of knowing that the main Japanese push will be towards Singapore, Sumatra and the DEI.

This is what I see in the original post.

...I clearly indicated that I wanted a realistic game but would welcome non-historical concepts that are within the bounds of “realism”.

Protecting the Wake invasion could be done quite well by simply delaying it a few days.

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

My opponent went to another forum and obtained opinions there (he gave me the title, something to do with Plan Orange, but I don't think it was Matrix) prior to my posting here and thus my turning to this forum. My opponent has since clarified that he asked a PM I think... but I'm still not sure. Additionally as witpqs points out above, I didn't name my opponent and certainly would never have done so. This thread was supposed to be for my edification only. To see if I was really that far off base.

Sadly Amoral you have missed my point entirely. It has nothing to do with the Lexington's position, after all on the first turn she can move only four hexes unless under full power (which she was not), which means it goes no where of significance no matter the direction. The point I was stressing is my disbelief in the ability of the Japanese to get two CV TFs (I was originally under the impression it was only one, but my opponent corrected me here) south of Midway and well east of Wake on turn one without loosing the element of surprise for the strike on Pearl. It just seems "gamey" to me. That's all. I firmly believe my opponent didn't intend to be "gamey" in that I believe he thinks it's a legitimate move. I happen to disagree. End of story.

For those of us that have played both sides and know initial dispositions and ranges we all will tend to commit ahistorical or "gamey" choices. As an Allied player I expect to get hunted and run like hell!! To date I haven't got caught notwithstanding the whole KB after me for an extended period of time....probably just lucky!

The upshot is that among experienced players a very detailed opening HR is required to deal with this. For this reason I am happy these players aired the issue, BUT, having said this....what the hell difference does it make if your opponent offers a re-play of the turn! Misunderstandings happen and this is just a bloody game! Get to the re-play and forget it.

Too bad about the game and situation Dr. Hal.

As an AVID JFB, I never move my CVs south after Pearl. Almost always go north to refuel or simple clear the area before 'changing history' with different moves. I've always figured that this provides the Allied Player 2-3 days to move clear of the potential action. If he hasn't well then too bad for him!

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

My opponent went to another forum and obtained opinions there (he gave me the title, something to do with Plan Orange, but I don't think it was Matrix) prior to my posting here and thus my turning to this forum. My opponent has since clarified that he asked a PM I think... but I'm still not sure. Additionally as witpqs points out above, I didn't name my opponent and certainly would never have done so. This thread was supposed to be for my edification only. To see if I was really that far off base.

Well, although I think I would be a little upset if I were you. If you both agreed to the non historical start and there was no clear rule about attacking the Allied carriers then I would say that you just should live with it. I really favor the historical start for this reason. I am not sure why so many players avoid it. A good Japanese player is still going to run amok even when playing the historical first day and any good Allied player is not going to lose the war due to the sinking of the POW and Repulse. And, it prevents this sort of misunderstanding. The bottom line is what do you think of your opponent? Should you end the game now if you are concerned about his style? Or is it worth playing on? It is a challenge but the loss of one carrier on the first day should not really hurt your chances of winning. If you trust your opponent then soldier on and have a good game.

CR does have a good point.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Too bad about the game and situation Dr. Hal.

As an AVID JFB, I never move my CVs south after Pearl. Almost always go north to refuel or simple clear the area before 'changing history' with different moves. I've always figured that this provides the Allied Player 2-3 days to move clear of the potential action. If he hasn't well then too bad for him!

That's very (I mean "extra") sporting of you. I figure that turn 1 is it. When the electrons shine on turn 2 it's all on the Allied player.

I have to agree with witpqs on this one, AFTER turn one, all gloves are off (within the bounds of agreement of course, you see, us old dogs CAN learn new tricks!)..... Hal

To prevent a situation like this, I always insist on a historical first turn. Then the gloves can come off (within reason).

Regards,
Feltan

If too much historical hindsight is a problem, try scenario "400 Days"... there is no historical start.
It's a standard scenario, with a completely unpredictable start.

Interesting Big B, never knew about these... interesting. Thanks for pointing the way. Hal

never knew about them either. Thanks again for posting them.