Nemo & 1EyedJacks - Open Thread

[Nemo121]

I think the two key issues are:
 
a) I stated that I wouldn't undertake any sub-borne landings at all, ever. So the only interpretation which matters is the aerial interpretation and
 
b) Alfred suggested the rule but only mentioned entire LCUs. I was well-aware that this would necessitate the committment of entire divisions if one were to comply with the house rule ( late in the game the Allies and Japs get airborne divisions ) so I asked for the "/" ( which I interpret as being an OR indicator ) so that company-sized drops would also be legal.
 
I can point to many times in the war when company-sized drops were used at the front lines so think they are perfectly valid in this game.
 
 
I really hope my compromises on Amboina and Kendari are acceptable too so that the game can continue. I'm glad to clarify game issues for 1EyedJacks ( or others ) but I really dislike the idea of having to replot stuff in Turn 1.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I think the two key issues are:

a) I stated that I wouldn't undertake any sub-borne landings at all, ever. So the only interpretation which matters is the aerial interpretation and

b) Alfred suggested the rule but only mentioned entire LCUs. I was well-aware that this would necessitate the committment of entire divisions if one were to comply with the house rule ( late in the game the Allies and Japs get airborne divisions ) so I asked for the "/" ( which I interpret as being an OR indicator ) so that company-sized drops would also be legal.

I can point to many times in the war when company-sized drops were used at the front lines so think they are perfectly valid in this game.


I really hope my compromises on Amboina and Kendari are acceptable too so that the game can continue. I'm glad to clarify game issues for 1EyedJacks ( or others ) but I really dislike the idea of having to replot stuff in Turn 1.

Rule 17:

I read this to say para-units can only drop on a dot beach or base hex provided the entire LCU unit participates. What adds to my interpretation is the second sentence that says drops of only a few squads are not permitted. I read this to say 1 para-unit per assault. I also read into the slash that you required enough air transports to move the entire unit over in a single drop. It sounds from your reply that Alfred intended for entire divisions to be used per target and that you modified the rule with the slash. There was no other way for me to read this then 1 para-unit per target – I would never consider splitting my para-units to multiple assaults – it’s beyond reasonable. I’m sure Alfred felt the same way. I fully expected to lose 3 bases to para-units – not 7. You mentioned talking with Alfred regarding the house rules. You and I never had that conversation.

The assaults at Amboina and Kendari violate house rule 23. You are cutting my back door with this move faster than the house rules allow. Alfred pointed out to me that attacking Kendari would be a violation of the house rules in my closed AAR.

Putting an airbase at Tavoy is going to hurt. Putting air bases at Tavoy, Port Blair, Amboina, Sorong, and Kendari on December 8 make the withdrawal of allied units somewhat - problematic. I understand why you want those bases. And we both know you are going to get them. I’m just saying that if you want them then you have to earn them – and that will take time.

Taking 4 bases in the PI with 1 para-unit will provide you with a very quick take-over of the PI. You have a time line you are trying to keep. PI will fall regardless of whether Yoko 3 Airborne takes 1 base or 4 in the PI but you are trying to free up your LCU in the PI for either the DEI or maybe India. I’m just guessing but it looks to me like you gain about 2 weeks on the PI campaign by using Yoko 3 as you did.

Two bases near Rangoon (Tavoy and Port Blair) do much the same thing you are trying to do with Amboina, Sorong, and Kendari and cut off India faster then the house rules regarding para-units (As I interpret rule 17) would allow.


I think you have a hell of an opening turn. You don’t have to bend the rules at Amboina and Kendari. I cannot sign off on the use of para-units to more than 1 target at a time. I just would not agree to it. I can’t imagine anyone signing off on using a para-unit as you did with Yoko 3.

The sad thing is that if you don’t redo the turn then no one wins. I do have hard feelings over this. I too invested time and effort into T1. From my perspective you don’t have too much to change from your original T1 (which I assume you saved a copy of prior to ending your turn?). Figure out what to do with your 3 para-units and pull the two invasions at Amboina and Kendari.

I’ll be the one who has to input my turn again from scratch…

[Nemo121]

I think that your contentions are highly questionable especially the "It speeds up the take-over of the PI by 2 weeks". Gees, the landings at Naga and Vigan were just administrative things to take the bases before my troops landed such that I wouldn't suffer landing casualties. As for Legaspi etc. I could just divert tiny landing forces of 30 or 40 men in a single ship and take those on December 8th. So, speeding things up by 2 weeks etc is a completely strategically incorrect assessment. In addition I believe that what I did was clearly allowed by the rules and any fault in not realising this lies with you for not reading the rule carefully. In reality I am responsible for following what the rule says, not what you think it means because you didn't take into account a divider.


I think that you are being VERY unfair here in terms of demanding things which simply aren't based on the historical record but I'll try one last time by giving you almost 100% of what you want - the only thing I won't give way on is your contention that a Regiment or Division can ONLY have as many drop targets as a Bn. So, here goes:

1. I still hold VERY strongly that since the rule mentions "entire air unit" that I violated NO rule.

2. However in the interests of the game I'll redo the turn on the basis that EACH BN in an airborne force can be given a different target. I can point to countless times in history where Bns were given independent targets. I would suggest that the new rule ( replacing the current airborne rule ) read as follows : " Each parachute unit can be given one objective per turn UNLESS it is greater than Bn size. For units larger than a Bn each constituent Bn may be given a different target. This means that an SNLF can be given one target per turn while a REGIMENT or BRIGADE can be given THREE targets per turn while a Division can have NINE." This removes all mention of air units. NB. Since I have an air Brigade at Kiungshan this means I can give it 3 targets ( Port Blair, Tavoy and one of the Philippine targets ). The SNLF will take Legaspi by air and my two landing forces will take Vigan and Naga. End result ALL FOUR locations you are worried about will fall on the same day. Hell, even if you still disagreed I'd just divert a 1000 ton AP to Legaspi and the place north of Vigan and STILL take them both on 7th December.

3. I also want us then to agree to NO FURTHER changes in house rules unless BOTH parties agree. This thing of renegotiating the House Rules all the time will drive us both crazy . If one or other of us wants a change but the other disagrees then the current House Rules stand. If we both agree then we can change it.

4. You will be expected to issue the EXACT same orders as you did last time as, obviously, taking advantage of your fore-knowledge to base planes in different places, at different altitudes or change LRCAP would constitute cheating.

5. We need to discuss Amboina and Kendari as national waters extend out to only 60 miles. I've drawn them in yellow in the accompanying jpeg which shows that there ARE channels (Between Menado and Morotai ) which I could pass through to get to Kendari and Amboina on 7th December. Now, if you don't want that then I suggest that we assume the Japanese were just outside Dutch National Waters on the 6th December ( at the big red x ) and begin their run-ins from there on December 6th. This will have them breach Dutch waters on the night of the 6th - which happened historically with Japanese invasion forces.

That will mean they arrive at Amboina on the morning of the 9th and Kendari on the morning of the 10th. It, again, gives you 100% of what you want.

I am telling you all of this as I am concerned that after we redo the turn and you realise that Kendari and Amboina still fall relatively early that you will ask for yet another renegotiation and I'd like to avoid that if at all possible.


So, do you still have any problems with this?

[Nemo121]

Alfred pointed out to me that attacking Kendari would be a violation of the house rules in my closed AAR.

In his opinion. I would point out that Alfred isn't an infallible judge of all that is right. His opinion is it breaches the rule, mine is that since I could use the channel between Morotai and Menado to get into position without violating Dutch national waters that the landing at Kendari does NOT breach House Rules. But I'll let you legislate that away and go with your interpretation.

but you are trying to free up your LCU in the PI for either the DEI or maybe India.

No, I'm not. I am just trying to avoid what I consider the bug of suffering casualties while landing troops over the beach at an undefended location. I take Naga and Vigan by air assault PURELY so that when I begin unloading troops on December 8th they don't suffer silly losses.

I would never consider splitting my para-units to multiple assaults

That's a regrettable lack of imagination on your part. I don't see why my Parachute Brigades and Divisions should be crippled by your lack of imagination. After all the Germans weren't constrained to be unimaginative just because their opponents were. So, if one side thinks of something more imaginative than the other the reaction should be to applaud the imaginative side for thinking outside the box. It definitely shouldn't be to legislate their imagination out of the game.

cut off India faster then the house rules regarding para-units (As I interpret rule 17) would allow.

Interesting. I think this shows that you DO view House Rules as a way to constrain the pace of operations through rules etc instead of viewing them as a means of just setting the boundaries of what is reasonable historically and physically. There are NO HOUSE RULES regarding cutting India or the DEI off by a certain date. ANY attribution you've made is just that, your attribution.

If you don't want me to have Port Blair then don't try to legislate away a reasonable drop by one of my Bns ( 1/3rd of a Brigade ) but launch your own seaborne invasion and take it back. Don't try to achieve things through rules, achieve them through fighting.

You don’t have to bend the rules at Amboina and Kendari.

I didn't. The graphic shows how I could get there without ever passing through Dutch territorial waters. Still, rather than see the game fold I'll give you what you want here.


The bottom line is you'll get almost everything you want except:
1. I will NEVER agree that independent Bn-sized drops didn't happen in real life. The historical record is just too strong.

2. From now on unless we BOTH agree to change a rule the rule stays as it is. I don't need an ulcer from having to renegotiate things every time I send a turn. If something didn't happen historically I'll be reasonable but if it happened historically then you had better expect it to happen in-game.

[cantona2]

To be fair to Nemo, para units were historically split up for multiple drops. Sicily, Normandy, Arnhem and so on. But to be fair to 1Eyed i too would have interpreted the LCU/air unit as the whole of the air unit and the whole of the LCU in one drop. Not trying to judge, just trying to give a bit of perspective. Redoing turn 1 is a royal pain in the ar$%

[Nemo121]

I've redone the necessary orders and I'm sending the turn file with the following amendment:
 
1. IJA Raiding Bde will STILL drop in 3 places as it contains 3 Bns. Tavoy, Port Blair and Vigan.
 
2. Yokosuka Airborne will drop on Naga.
 
3. TFs for Kendari and Amboina start from the hex I outlined with the red X and moved 4 to 6  hexes towards their objectives since 6th December.
 
Obviously since none of those drops had to contest with LRCAP on the first run-through I will expect there to be no fighters on the second run-through. So, apart from the fact that I just won't agree that Bdes and Divisions can't be split into Bns ( as happened ALL the time during the real war ) you get everything you want.
 
 
Now I also foresee another problem in terms of Turn 2. I am SURE you have some sort of idea of what you would consider "fair" in terms of paradrops on Turn 2. I am presuming that if I drop in a particular place on Turn 1 that you want to ban me from doing more drops until my unit is re-united ( either by flying the fragment back to the main unit OR flying the rest of the main unit out to the fragment ). This seems like a good idea, on the surface ( and in your favour ), but it is neither when you actually examine it.
 
This would create the interesting situation in which we would both be forced to use transports to fly troops into enemy bases in the face of swarms of enemy fighters in complete breach of common sense in order to obey a rule but if it is what you feel is reasonable then I'll go with it albeit with the understanding that if you want to impose such a rule then I'll expect you to abide by it when you get multiple divisions of troops and I get the opportunity to massacre your transport squadrons. E.g. Late 1944 you paradrop on a base in the Philippines. I mass 500 fighters there and slaughter hundred of transport pilots per day for the next week while you fly more troops in or more troops out in obedience to the rules... In doing so I cripple your USAAF pilot pools and condemn your fighter squadrons to drawing untrained pilots for the next few weeks. Stupid isn't it? Yeah but that's why we have to think of the ramifications of rules. Right now such a rule would work in your favour but since I think it is unfair I would have NO problems with insisting you stick to the rule later in the game ( just as I would stick to it absolutely right now ) and taking advantage of it as it gives you advantage now.
 
My personal preference is that on each turn each Bn can hit a new target  - so a Bde get to land at 3 places on Day 1 and a different 3 places on Day 2 etc etc etc but I am presuming that wouldn't be acceptable to you so I'm asking you to tell me what you consider acceptable before I'm accused of breaking the rules.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Alfred pointed out to me that attacking Kendari would be a violation of the house rules in my closed AAR.

In his opinion. I would point out that Alfred isn't an infallible judge of all that is right. His opinion is it breaches the rule, mine is that since I could use the channel between Morotai and Menado to get into position without violating Dutch national waters that the landing at Kendari does NOT breach House Rules. But I'll let you legislate that away and go with your interpretation.

Sorry, but I’m not going to draw lines in the map to find channels. The intent of the rule is that a naval TF should be able to come in undetected thru international waters to perform an attack while using the Dec. 7th Surprise Bonus. That path you have diagrammed is fraught with opportunities for having your TF discovered – thus negating a surprise landing.

I would never consider splitting my para-units to multiple assaults

That's a regrettable lack of imagination on your part. I don't see why my Parachute Brigades and Divisions should be crippled by your lack of imagination. After all the Germans weren't constrained to be unimaginative just because their opponents were. So, if one side thinks of something more imaginative than the other the reaction should be to applaud the imaginative side for thinking outside the box. It definitely shouldn't be to legislate their imagination out of the game.

You are splitting a para-unit into fragments by using transport aircraft so you can prevent units arriving by sea from receiving, as you call them, silly losses” at multiple landing sites. Creating fragments to achieve the desired result seems to me to be gaming the system. Please don’t consider this a personal attack but instead a simple difference of opinion. I come to the conclusion that this manner of using para-units is gaming the system based on the use-of-and-options-available-to an infantry division in this game. An infantry division can be broken down into A, B, and C units.


In this game when an infantry division is broken down each part has a standard breakdown of troops and support. And the three parts of the division can be rebuilt into 1 unit… I don’t consider my stance or view as to the proper use of para-units in this game a “lack of imagination” on my part. I just believe the para-units in this game were never designed to be used in the fashion you wish to use them. You’ve stated that you will never agree that independent Bn-sized drops did not happen in real life. I concur. In this game the para-unit is not designed to be broken down into Bns. You are trying to bypass what many might consider a game flaw. I don’t know anything about modifying the units in a mod but there might be a possibility to create a para-unit that functions like an INF Division to be broken down into separate Bns and then rebuilt but that is not an option in our current game.

cut off India faster then the house rules regarding para-units (As I interpret rule 17) would allow.

Interesting. I think this shows that you DO view House Rules as a way to constrain the pace of operations through rules etc instead of viewing them as a means of just setting the boundaries of what is reasonable historically and physically. There are NO HOUSE RULES regarding cutting India or the DEI off by a certain date. ANY attribution you've made is just that, your attribution.

If you don't want me to have Port Blair then don't try to legislate away a reasonable drop by one of my Bns ( 1/3rd of a Brigade ) but launch your own seaborne invasion and take it back. Don't try to achieve things through rules, achieve them through fighting.

I never claimed that house rules cannot be used to constrain the pace of operations. There are several constraints in the games rules that you proposed due to game balance and lack of available counter-measures. Items 17 and 23 are regarding acceptable play throughout the game or for the specific date of Dec 7, 1941. I feel that some of your moves violate the intent of those two house rules. I’m not saying that your strategy is unfair – I’m simply stating that the way you are attempting to achieve your objectives violates the house rules.

You don’t have to bend the rules at Amboina and Kendari.

I didn't. The graphic shows how I could get there without ever passing through Dutch territorial waters. Still, rather than see the game fold I'll give you what you want here.


The bottom line is you'll get almost everything you want except:
1. I will NEVER agree that independent Bn-sized drops didn't happen in real life. The historical record is just too strong.

2. From now on unless we BOTH agree to change a rule the rule stays as it is. I don't need an ulcer from having to renegotiate things every time I send a turn. If something didn't happen historically I'll be reasonable but if it happened historically then you had better expect it to happen in-game.

I do not accept the way you address me in a public AAR. I do not feel that my reading of the house rules was wrong. And I was not “renegotiating” the current house rules. I was simply asking you to abide by them.

The only criticism I would accept in this attempt to play a game is that I went back on my decision for a truce between Russia and Japan. In that instance, I listened to advisors that you recommended to help stop me from making rookie mistakes as an allied player. The argument presented to me by my advisors was that if I agree to a truce that you will pull many of your INF divisions for use in other theatres and thus not honor the threat of an attack from Russia. It was pointed out that in a previous AAR you had mentioned it would be foolish for the allied side to agree to a truce between Russia and Japan. I requested to go back to the normal house rules without a truce based on the recommendations of my advisors. I stated why I wanted to go back to the initial setup per the house rules and you seemed to take umbrage. I stated that I would not attack on T1 and you seemed to scoff at my statement. In truth, I would have looked for an opportunity thru a diplomatic incident or waited until it seemed to me you had weekend your ability to defend Manchuko.

And now when I state that the multiple-base-attacks of para-units is outside the house rules my reasoning is “highly questionable,” I am “unfair” and demanding, and that you are doing everything in your power to be reasonable. Ok. At this point I think I’ll move on. I don’t really want to play a game for a year or so with this type of contention – it just would not be fun for me. I’ve sent the password to AndyMac as was requested.

[Nemo121]

So, I've agreed with everything you've asked for except for the fact that I still hold that dropping a Bde or Division in Bn-sized drops is kosher and I'm the one being unreasonable?

Honestly I have to ask just what would have been satisfying to you? COMPROMISE means not getting everything you want. You've gotten EVERYTHING you've asked for except:
1. Not basing more fighters into Vlad on Day 1 and
2. I didn't accept that Bn-sized drops are forbidden.

The only way you could have gotten more is if I just agreed to everything you said and never offered a different opinion. Fine, let me call you on it then, here's a final offer:

1. If it is the only way for this game to continue then I'll redo the orders so each parachute unit ( whether it be a Bn or Division ) only lands at one place per turn.
2. In future though unless both parties agree that a change is reasonable the current house rules stand.

I don't see how I can actually give you more than that... Hell if you want to base fighters into Vlad on Day 1 I'll even let you do that so you get 100% of everything you've asked for... but in return I want an agreement that the current house rules will stand from now on unless we BOTH agree to change them. I think we can both have a fun game if we draw a line under the sand of this Turn 1 and have an understanding that the rules we now have are the rules we will have at game's end ( to cut down on this infuriating re-negotiation/clarification or whatever you want to call it ).

Pulling the plug on a game when you've gotten 95% of everything you've asked for is, IMO, really bad form.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, I've agreed with everything you've asked for except for the fact that I still hold that dropping a Bde or Division in Bn-sized drops is kosher and I'm the one being unreasonable?

Honestly I have to ask just what would have been satisfying to you? COMPROMISE means not getting everything you want. You've gotten EVERYTHING you've asked for except:
1. Not basing more fighters into Vlad on Day 1 and
2. I didn't accept that Bn-sized drops are forbidden.

The only way you could have gotten more is if I just agreed to everything you said and never offered a different opinion. Fine, let me call you on it then, here's a final offer:

1. If it is the only way for this game to continue then I'll redo the orders so each parachute unit ( whether it be a Bn or Division ) only lands at one place per turn.
2. In future though unless both parties agree that a change is reasonable the current house rules stand.

I don't see how I can actually give you more than that... Hell if you want to base fighters into Vlad on Day 1 I'll even let you do that so you get 100% of everything you've asked for... but in return I want an agreement that the current house rules will stand from now on unless we BOTH agree to change them. I think we can both have a fun game if we draw a line under the sand of this Turn 1 and have an understanding that the rules we now have are the rules we will have at game's end ( to cut down on this infuriating re-negotiation/clarification or whatever you want to call it ).

Pulling the plug on a game when you've gotten 95% of everything you've asked for is, IMO, really bad form.

Ok.

1. One para-unit to a base attack. No using fragments in such fashion for a LCU to be broken down other than as is normally allowed in the game with the divide/rebuild option.

2. You drop the day 1 attacks @ Kendari and Amboina.

3. House rules stand pat unless BOTH sides agree to a change.


Update: I just read you are looking at a game w/2ndAcer. I'm more then willing to have you play 2ndAcer. In fact, at this stage it would be my preference for you to play some one else.

[Nemo121]

Ok, let's just try to put this behind us and say that obviously we were a lot more incompatible than we thought in terms of the game we wanted. If it bit us this much on the first turn i'm sure it would have reared its head again plus there were obviously hurt feelings on both sides which were only going to get rubbed raw again.
 
So, let's draw a line under it, forget about it and move on as though it never happened. Fair?

[ny59giants]

I'm going to put on my counselor's hat for just one moment.

For further reference for people doing HRs, that you include examples of what is OK by that HR and was is not acceptable by that HR. Both parties seemed to have "assumed" it meant one thing while the other had a different interpretation. I've done enough family counseling that mis-communications often happens (like it does in out WitP family). 

I'm still hoping for an Empire's Ablaze version once Admiral's Edition comes out. [;)]

[Nemo121]

LOL! Oh sweet Jesus. You're a systemic therapist aren't you? Own up now [:D]

[ny59giants]

Our company uses MST (Multi-Systemic Therapy) for dealing with families and children. I prefer Reality Therapy with most people. I love Freud's Ego Defense Mechanisms (throw away the rest). I have a Ph.D in Rationalization and I let my teenage client's know it early and often when they try to "justify" their behaviors. [:D]  Been there, done that!!

You forgot to try to "resolve" the conflict with Michael and instead "compromise" which is where both sides lose to some degree. There did not seem to be a 'win-win" scenario presented.

FYI - I'm single and counsel families, but truly love doing any couple's counseling when possible. Some men are so ....

[Nemo121]

LOL! I would imagine that giving him 90%+ of what he wanted but not all of it was a compromise [8D]
 
Freudian eh? Tres interesant. I've always been told I took after Glazer and his whole "reality principle" thing myself [:D]
 
 
Men and women both. The human capacity to self-delude is endless.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Ok, let's just try to put this behind us and say that obviously we were a lot more incompatible than we thought in terms of the game we wanted. If it bit us this much on the first turn i'm sure it would have reared its head again plus there were obviously hurt feelings on both sides which were only going to get rubbed raw again.

So, let's draw a line under it, forget about it and move on as though it never happened. Fair?

OK - I'm down with that. What kind of sucks is that without a game on the line we can be civil but... Dude, I just flat out thought you were crossing the line. I read those rules and I was thinking - man, if we gotta crack on each other over two freaking rules... Maybe I should have looked for the grey in the rules but sometimes the tone of your responses had me grinding teeth. And maybe I was reading too much into that also.

For my part in adding fuel to the fire I apologize.

[n01487477]

To all you HR aficionado's (ny59Giants Vs Damian(me))
I'm starting to invade Soviet territory ... (Michael says this is ok, but I'm checking anyway) my Q..

Using PP points ... if I load a lcu on Japanese soil but assign them to Kwantang, I can't load them ... Northern is ok. What is the designated HQ for Soviet ... if Kwantang I'll change them after they offload, but it will cost me double the PP's.
Is assigning them Northern ok, with my fellow players ?