Rise of the Sheep! JocMeister(A) vs. Obvert(J)

[RogerJNeilson]

Jocke, Obvert.

I read both sides so I am not going to comment on what is happening in the game.

However I will comment on the fact that you need to get a sense of proportion and perhaps a sense that - after all - one of you is not using their native language.

There are times - and we have had them before - when things happen because things happen’. Its not intentional.

For the last four moves in one of my games I’ve had 4Es do night bombing despite AFAIK none of them having orders to do so.

Reading what has happened on both AARs I’d say its just one of those things and you two are letting it become a major issue.

My long term opponents and I are good friends, we often chat about other issues in life, but have found its best to keep email content about things in the game to a minimum.

Can I humbly suggest that you’d both be better off saying less about what you are doing and letting the moves speak for themselves?

Maybe the root of this is the use of the word ‘controversial’ when another word would be ‘unorthodox’ or just plain ‘different’.

Just my - hopefully helpful - advice.

Roger

posted to both AARs.

[Bullwinkle58]

I agree with you that such an HR is unworkable in the late game (especially) when AF all become huge and maxed out on size, they tend to be close-packed together, and the numbers of planes is huge. When you add naval air in the mix with possible leakage onto land targets it becomes impossible to manage or to unravel from the reports we players receive.

900 fighters on CAP over Saigon? In my mind I'm hearing Symon/JWE cussing. Shades of GJ and Rader. If you go to the extremes of the model you get extreme "whatthefoo" results and shouldn't be surprised at anything in the reports.

For me, as always, the issue is not the mechanics so much as the, for lack of a better term, unmannerly assumption that one player can reach across the board and "touch" the other player's OOB. Think of another game--chess, backgammon, poker--where that sort of intrusion would be expected and allowed. Can't. They're YOUR planes. His are HIS. The devs went to extreme lengths to research the operating and design stats of each and every aircraft. And then players add HRs to prevent planes from doing what they, yes, really could do in real life.

If this ends here I'm sorry. But let this AAR and game be an epitaph on HRs. At least those that try to "improve" the air game.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

For me, as always, the issue is not the mechanics so much as the, for lack of a better term, unmannerly assumption that one player can reach across the board and "touch" the other player's OOB. Think of another game--chess, backgammon, poker--where that sort of intrusion would be expected and allowed. Can't. They're YOUR planes. His are HIS. The devs went to extreme lengths to research the operating and design stats of each and every aircraft. And then players add HRs to prevent planes from doing what they, yes, really could do in real life.

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

[JocMeister]

Thanks for commenting guys. We´ll see where it ends. I still have hopes the game can continue. My view on it is pretty much what roger says. I just want to play the game and lately the best way to do that seems to be keeping our "communication" to a minimum and just send the turns back and forth. I asked Erik this after the last "discussion" when I "suicide reconned" (forgot to cancel the movement) and the turns flowed very well for a couple of weeks after that.

Perhaps I have become more cynical or just matured as a player but I want to play the game.

I think it has boiled down to two different interpretations of the LRCAP agreement. Erik interpret our "agreement" that LRCAP should not be allowed in any area where it can interfere with bombings. My view on that is that its simply impossible to play the game under those limitations. I can´t simply stand down all LRCAP around Luzon every time I´m going to bomb anything. In this case I have LRCAP up over a BIG amphib TF unloading 1 hex south of Manila. I also have a BIG LRCAP up over both bombardment TFs in case they ended up in "indian country". Its very likely that some of this LRCAP is the LRCAP that showed up over Manila. I can´t control that and that has been my point from the beginning. What if it was the CV CAP that showed up over Manila? Does that mean I have to keep my CVs 12 hexes from any bombings from now on? I can´t bomb a base prior or during to an amphib landing because that would give the bombers protection from the LRCAP covering the amphibs?

I simply cannot play under those circumstances. Its just impossible.

My interpretation of our agreement was simply to not exclusively use LRCAP for pure bomber escort and try to avoid situations where that happens. This was the agreement (as I perceived it) two years ago. Had Erik suggested this today I would simply have said no because I know (now) the mechanics of the game makes this very hard to follow. Even more so in the BETA.

I still hope this can come to a solution. But I want CRYSTAL clear "agreements" or HRs to avoid the constant discussions on controversy that has followed this game the last 6 months.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Which still isn't the point. It's players trying to "improve unto real life" models they can't see, didn't develop, and don't understand, all based on sandboxing some statistically invalid number of trials. And letting years-long games end over beefs with those HRs.

[Crackaces]

I think the last 2 pages of this AAR defines very well why opponents for this game must be selected very carefully. The game last longer then many Hollywood marriages and I think this AAR shows why it is important that the players share a worldview.

It appears to me that Eric has a very concrete worldview of the combat results and visualizes these results as a reality that can be controlled to conform to this worldview. Let us take an LRCAP over the target. In my worldview I see an abstraction of some percentage of planes that appear with each fragmented result, not the same planes recycling at altitude. Maybe this is what occurs in the code but it is an abstraction of sorts. But when these two worldviews collide, and one side has an insistence on projecting that worldview . a real conflict results between the players. In this case I believe the results are not as important as that the combat replay reflects the worldview. Thus every single bomber might be shot down but if somehow LRCAP planes show up the opponent will complain that the situation did not fit their worldview.

My first PBEM game I rampaged through an under defended Burma, which my opponent decided to defend the Irrawaddy Valley. Almost every turn was a grumble about how it was completely impossible to cross the border and attack through the jungle. Despite my hours of illustrating the paths of Operation Extended Capital and the Historical IJ operation at Imphal. No amount of discussion was going to blend our worldviews because eventually I understood that the game my opponent desired was a Pacific focused Solomon's -- Philippines Campaign, and he over prepared for that worldview.

Using the KB not to strike Pearl Harbor but as naval platforms to ensure a rapid blitzkrieg of Singapore i.e. "Mersing Gambit"[BTW A gambit is when you give up something valuable to take advantage of a situation .. that move simply redirects efforts to a different strategy [;)] ] Is the latest discussion for a home rule to conform to a historical sense of reality. But in game terms . it is quite interesting ...just not interesting to a player that believes a blitzkrieg threating India would incite a different Allied response.[8D]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Exactly my point. Care to show me one AAR where a P-47 or Corsair has flown anywhere under 10k feet?

There isn't any.

It's not players that are preventing planes from doing what they did in real life, it's the air code. It's also why flying an escort mission is a mass death sentence for pilots, and why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

[Crackaces]

why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

That debate ended up with one fine gentleman leaving our forum [:(]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If the air game is based on anything resembling real life, no fighter ever flew below 10,000ft. Ever. How good an aircraft or it's pilot is doesn't matter, it's just that maximum altitude number that matters.

Tell that to the P-47 pilots killing thousands of German AFVs at treetop level. Or Marine CAS pilots flying Corsairs full of napalm over myriad PTO islands.

Exactly my point. Care to show me one AAR where a P-47 or Corsair has flown anywhere under 10k feet?

There isn't any.

It's not players that are preventing planes from doing what they did in real life, it's the air code. It's also why flying an escort mission is a mass death sentence for pilots, and why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

I don't have any yet. When I do you'll see this.

Heck, in my game with Cliff I just drove a large Japanese tank formation away from Urumchi with BIPLANES! Destroyed/disabled about 15 tanks. He withdrew, giving the base time to up the forts and repair disablement. (If he's reading this I don't mind. [:)])

Escort in the game is there to get the bombers through. I agree the loss rates are high. But the bombers do good work if you don't constantly set them to make readily-repairable holes in runways. I personally think sweeps are vastly overused, especially by Japan. But Allied players need to learn that just because he sweeps you don't have to fight him there. You can let him waste supply and ops losses drilling holes in the sky. No sweep ever hurt a grunt.

My opinion is a lot of players are in "air ruts." They have formed habits, many pre-betas, and continue to do the same old same old. Their choice.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

That debate ended up with one fine gentleman leaving our forum [:(]

Who was that?

[KenchiSulla]

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

EDIT the job of the fighter is ofcourse also to shoot down the enemy bomber.. just as important as protecting own bombers...

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

why two hundred aircraft will sortie to sink a pair of converted fishing trawlers.

That debate ended up with one fine gentleman leaving our forum [:(]

Who was that?

We have not heard from CannoeRebel in quite awhile .. the criticisms of his use of xAKLs and xAK's as pickets caused an incendiary dialogue and personal attacks that CR just shrugged and left our forum ...
I would have liked to see Quixote and his unique thoughts on December 7th vs. CR and his finding the IJ's weakness and exploiting it ...I suspect we will never see anything like that soon ..

Me, I just block these fools no matter how much positive information they have .. once somebody goes to the level of personal attacks .. they go on my blocked list ...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

In the latest Beta's and depending on circumstances the difference of altitude does not have to be that dramatic. I just smacked an LCU with 2E's at 4K and the Zero's were at 21K .. no contest ..[;)] At night 8K altitude differences and no radar, and I have had bombers get away Scott clean ... [8D]

[Bullwinkle58]

Ah. I didn't make the connection with him and planes versus converted trawlers.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

Bullwinkle, it all depends on the situation. If your objective is to achieve local superiority bombing aircraft on the ground might be a good idea.

It simply is not black and white....

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ah. I didn't make the connection with him and planes versus converted trawlers.

Well there is a whole contention around some ships worth less than military ships being used as pickets. Whether these platforms are converted trawlers or xAK's [;)]

From a game standpoint it is nearly impossible to simulate reality unless the tactical turns turned into real time FPS simulation .. so we try to do what we believe does this for our worldview .. some have an emotional stake in their perception of reality ...

IN the end .. we lost a friend ..

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

Bullwinkle, it all depends on the situation. If your objective is to achieve local superiority bombing aircraft on the ground might be a good idea.

It simply is not black and white....

If only to get a lucky die roll and start a discussion on how borked night bombing is ... [8D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

In this game the objective of fighters is to clear the sky for the bomber... As Bullwinkle said, having fighters shooting holes in the sky doesn't really do anything

Set your twin engined bombers to bomb from 4000 feet against a Tojo CAP at 30k.. You'll see what I mean

And to my Allied bretheren I say: stop trying to destroy his planes on the ground! You won't win that one. Use your bombers to make it impossible for him to build planes in the first place.

Bullwinkle, it all depends on the situation. If your objective is to achieve local superiority bombing aircraft on the ground might be a good idea.

It simply is not black and white....

I agree in the short term. I'm talking whole-war. Getting ready for the endgame. I don't see a lot of that thinking in Allied AARs. Maybe it's just me. But 4Es are strategic platforms. They ought to be used in the main on strategic targets. IOW, kill the economy. I'd rather start on the head and work down. The body will be dead long before I get to the knees.

[Miller]

The problem for some Jap players is that they expect 1942 game results in 1945.....just aint gonna happen unless the Allied player is a total noob.