Matrix Games Forums

Hi, I don't give a hoot about points. I voted for no points period in victory conditions i posted my suggested victory conditions if you don't know them then once again your guessing. Please stop SPAMMING the boards. But in a game where players exploit the system for auto victory (based on points) Loss of material should count much more then some of these meaningless bases.


"Supply? Is there a problem with supply? All's well here!"

"What do you mean there's too much Japanese shipping, and that it doesn't work with the logistics model?"

"Ports? What do you mean they're too easy to use? They're not too easy for me to use."

"What do mean naval bombardments are misused? You just don't know how to defend your ports properly!"

"Too many B-17s? Our studies indicate otherwise."

"The Tony's come too early and are too effective? We studied that closely, and our experts say. . . ."

"Japan's already conquered China and India by the middle of 1942? Hey, you never heard of what-ifs?"

"Somebody's stacked twelve divisions on Tarawa? Ease up, fella, it's only a game after all."

I don't think any of these are bugs. I don't think you can prove most of them. I play Japan.
I run out of supply, The Tony does awefull in combat and if it does arrive early (which I've explained before in order for a unit to enter combat in South Pacific in a certain month the group had to be equipped before that and aircraft had to be produced before that the production date has to long enough in advance but no matter I've delayed production and use of Tony (ask my PBEM opponents) And the delay had no effect on the map (Japan is on the defensive by the time it arrives) I don't think Japan is overrunning China anymore. It aoppears to have been a player/starting fort level issue. Use of Kwantung Army without paying PP (Not that the Japanese players are not still trying)
Japan has 12 division total I wish my Japanese opponents would stack them all on Tarawa. (The garrison of Tarawa is more a product of what can be supplied. 12 divisions would require 100k supply per month on a base where it would go to waste and be subject to enemy air and bombardments. Its a non issue except to pin heads who like to debate meaningless points.

You don't play the game. You pose as a player for the thrill of posting. long ago it was pointed out you have the power to change OB issues. (Like number of B-17 or arrival date of Tony) But you keep saying they are design issues.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

You're only here to play games.

Call me naive, but I thought that's what I was doing here. Playing a game. [:D]

Makes me wonder what your agenda is. I have seen you make a number of valid points where the game could be improved, but I must say the vitriol is getting a little tiresome.

I'll be quiet now and go back to playing, and enjoying, my games.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't give a hoot about points. I voted for no points period in victory conditions i posted my suggested victory conditions if you don't know them then once again your guessing. Please stop SPAMMING the boards. But in a game where players exploit the system for auto victory (based on points) Loss of material should count much more then some of these meaningless bases.

With that small part I might agree.

As for "SPAMMING" the boards, there's plenty of that, no doubt, but when I get into these kinds of arguments you could hardly call it "SPAMMING." My arguments here are well-considered and articulate. That dosn't sound like "SPAMMING" to me. Now you may disagree with my points of view, but that's something else.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

"Supply? Is there a problem with supply? All's well here!"

"What do you mean there's too much Japanese shipping, and that it doesn't work with the logistics model?"

"Ports? What do you mean they're too easy to use? They're not too easy for me to use."

"What do mean naval bombardments are misused? You just don't know how to defend your ports properly!"

"Too many B-17s? Our studies indicate otherwise."

"The Tony's come too early and are too effective? We studied that closely, and our experts say. . . ."

"Japan's already conquered China and India by the middle of 1942? Hey, you never heard of what-ifs?"

"Somebody's stacked twelve divisions on Tarawa? Ease up, fella, it's only a game after all."

I don't think any of these are bugs.

Neither do I. I think it's a collective case of bad game design.

I don't think you can prove most of them.

Then you think wrong. All these issues, and plenty more where they came from, have been documented so many times by some many different players in so many different ways it would be foolish for anyone to deny it this late in the game. And yet here you are, front and center and prepared to deny it!

Amazing stuff, Russ. [:D]

I play Japan. I run out of supply. The Tony does awefull in combat and if it does arrive early (which I've explained before in order for a unit to enter combat in South Pacific in a certain month the group had to be equipped before that and aircraft had to be produced before that the production date has to long enough in advance but no matter I've delayed production and use of Tony (ask my PBEM opponents)...

Why would you do this? You write above "if" the Tony arrives early, so it's clear you're still not convinced of that, all reasonable evidence to the contrary.

The last time you and I spoke on the subject, you denied up and down that there was any problem whatsoever with the Tony's arrival date and performance. (This was during the thread where Joe's opponent in a game was using them to slaughter B-17s over PNG. So then I ran further tests, reported those to the board, etc. Do you recall? Or must I go back and copy and paste and quote chapter and verse from that dialog?)

And the delay had no effect on the map (Japan is on the defensive by the time it arrives) I don't think Japan is overrunning China anymore. It aoppears to have been a player/starting fort level issue. Use of Kwantung Army without paying PP (Not that the Japanese players are not still trying)

I wouldn't know what's going on anymore.

You're saying that the Japanese ability to overrun China has been squashed? How? Has Japan's ability to mount a massive invasion of India and then conquer that sub-continent also been squashed? If so, how?

Japan has 12 division total I wish my Japanese opponents would stack them all on Tarawa. (The garrison of Tarawa is more a product of what can be supplied. 12 divisions would require 100k supply per month on a base where it would go to waste and be subject to enemy air and bombardments. Its a non issue except to pin heads who like to debate meaningless points.

Getting around your ad hominem plea . . . overstacking/superstacking/call it what you will is not a non-issue but a real issue. And not just in defense but also in attack. It leads to phony play, especially given the poor land-combat system and all that that entails in all other respects.

You don't play the game.

I do play the game, so to speak, though I haven't played it in awhile. Let's see. If someone doesn't play the game for, say, five or six months, then he is automatically ineligible to post criticism of the game in this forum? Is that your position?

You pose as a player for the thrill of posting. long ago it was pointed out you have the power to change OB issues. (Like number of B-17 or arrival date of Tony) But you keep saying they are design issues.

The OOB and arrival schedule do represent design issues. Yes, this stuff can be changed, thankfully. All it requires is lots of time and energy spent with the editor--and a user-unfriendly one at that.

Unfortunately, many of the game's other issues cannot be effectively worked around using the editor, thus we find even an ongoing major project of serious bent and dedicated leadership, such as CHS, where different players have donated countless hours of their time in an effort to improve matters, effectively stymied on crucial game-play issues such as the air model, the naval model, the land-combat model, logistics in general, ports and airfields and their related dynamics and how these wed to and interact with the air and naval and land-combat models, etc. None of that can be changed with the editor, all of that adds up to compose the heart and soul of a game which, at least to those people, must not work all that well, otherwise why would they spend so much of their time trying to remedy best they can its problems?

Do you follow me?

ORIGINAL: ctangus

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

You're only here to play games.

Call me naive, but I thought that's what I was doing here. Playing a game. [:D]

That's precisely what you're doing, playing a game. And more power to you. My purpose is to try and improve the games you play. Now to me, that sounds like a win-win deal, but apparently you see it otherwise.

Would you mind explaining to me how and why you see it that way?

Makes me wonder what your agenda is. I have seen you make a number of valid points where the game could be improved, but I must say the vitriol is getting a little tiresome.

The "vitriol" is getting tiresome? Which "vitriol" might that be? The part about the game you enjoy playing so much doesn't make good sense? Well, I'm sorry, but that's exactly what the game makes: no good sense.

I'll be quiet now and go back to playing, and enjoying, my games.

No, you won't. You'll come back and treat us to further little nuggets of wisdom . . . as time wears on.

The OOB and arrival schedule do represent design issues. Yes, this stuff can be changed, thankfully. All it requires is lots of time and energy spent with the editor--and a user-unfriendly one at that.

Hi, Just a fraction of the time you spend complaining about it.

My purpose is to try and improve the games you play. Now to me, that sounds like a win-win deal, but apparently you see it otherwise

well as we say in the Navy "Turn to" what are you doing here. Get cracking I don't see no code coming out yet. You do mean you are going to do the driving this time not sit in the back seat and give directions on where the hands go "10 and 2 oclock" "Use your turn signals" "slow down" Or do you mean continue to yammer about how someone else should do the job but do it your way?

Last Word!

-F-

I do play the game, so to speak, though I haven't played it in awhile. Let's see. If someone doesn't play the game for, say, five or six months, then he is automatically ineligible to post criticism of the game in this forum? Is that your position?

Hi, Explain to me again (I never tire of hearing it) why you need to post the same things over and over in every thread. Isee you have "pounced" on another issue (the airbalance CV thingy" It never ruined any of your games did it?
Most of what you complain about never ruined any of your games.
I never used 12 div to invade an atoll
I never used the super supply in SRA
I never used ASW TF with more then 6 ships.
I don't assign missions to airgroups the turn they transfer (and yes I get caught on the ground by opponents who transfer in response but do assign missions the same turn I just dont cry about it)
I don't put all my CV in one TF (learned the hard way not to do that)

Exactly what bad design elements caused you to debark your CV groups onto Tarawa in Jan 1942? Too much intell? Game going too fast? What part of the poor design made you (an acknowledged expert on the Pacific War and Warfare in General) decide that Tarawa was tenable for the Allies in Jan 1942? Had you defeated the IJN? Were the Japanese airforces tied down or destroyed by the bloody air model? I hope everyone who follows your criticisms has taken the time to read your AAR.
Was it WO 0/0 taking control of your mind? The point here is you need to understand how the game works before you can post how it does not work. It is an Operational Level game with Tactical visual aids. (the ship combat and air combat) The ships are not actually lined up in 2 opposing rows. (you do know that correct) "Surprise" does not mean "Oh golly I'm surprised and can be shot at for free now" Fatigue is not just the pilot
and so on.

You often complain about the design and testing (well actually it seems that is all you do)
You have never posted any proof that you can use WITP and conduct a simple Operation.
You'd actually have to play the game in order to post about it's weakness. I mean play as Japan from start to finish and post a list of everything thats wrong. Find an Allied player and post your great "Everything you always wanted to know about what is wrong with WITP but were afraid to ask" AAR. But you'd have to prove while doing so you knew what you were doing. How all this excess supply and transport allowed you to win autovictory in 1943. (knock out China in 42 and all that)

Just use this AAR to expose all the design faults. Everyone will know right were to look as case by case point by point you demonstrate the hows and wheres of game impact and poor model and bad design. No one can confuse an AAR with SPAM. I'd like you to play with Ron S. because he is a pretty good Allied player but he belives in the Japanese supply abundance. You use it to defeat him OK? Put up or shut up. Don't say "another poster said" I want to see "In my experiance that I post right here and now I did this and this with that and that and look what happened" Stop trolling other peoples posted problems and adopting them as your own. You don't know exaclty what cause the problem. You have to be able to duplicate it (and eliminate player error)

Maybe we can get Spooky or Rougeusmc (or even Mr Frag [X(])to host the game files so the herd can follow every blow in this clash of titans to prove how mucked up WITP really is. don't bother with the Christmas cards or other clutter. Keep the AAR consise and to the point. Explain what you are doing and why and with what and why (you know your normal detail only this time you'll be using your own experiances not something you've read somewhere and adopted as a new pet) It should be easy for you to drive WITP down to it's own destruction and ruin as you masterfully wield your way to victory. Just picture me weeping as you get that Auto victory that always eludes me.

To keep it honest both players have to agree that the loser can not post any complaints about WITP for a year. (maybe too harsh. They must wear the sig line "I suck at WITP" for 6 months)

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

That's precisely what you're doing, playing a game. And more power to you. My purpose is to try and improve the games you play. Now to me, that sounds like a win-win deal, but apparently you see it otherwise.

Would you mind explaining to me how and why you see it that way?

I'll acknowledge up front that message boards are an imperfect form of communication, and that I'm still an admitted newb. All the same, the impression I've received is that you're more interested in trashing the game for the sake of trashing it. Perhaps that's incorrect, but that's certainly what has come across.

If you're truly interested in improving the game, I'd suggest a change of tactics. Lighten up a little & acknowledge some of the positive aspects of the game. And the hard work, by a small company, that went into it.

Look at it from Matrix's & 2 x 3's viewpoint - are they more likely to listen to Mogami, who is appreciative of the game & them, or someone who is extremely critical of them? It's just human nature.

The "vitriol" is getting tiresome? Which "vitriol" might that be? The part about the game you enjoy playing so much doesn't make good sense? Well, I'm sorry, but that's exactly what the game makes: no good sense.

The vitriol directed at Matrix, 2x3 and seemingly anyone who disagrees with you.

No, you won't. You'll come back and treat us to further little nuggets of wisdom . . . as time wears on.

You got me there! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I do play the game, so to speak, though I haven't played it in awhile. Let's see. If someone doesn't play the game for, say, five or six months, then he is automatically ineligible to post criticism of the game in this forum? Is that your position?

Hi, Explain to me again (I never tire of hearing it) why you need to post the same things over and over in every thread. Isee you have "pounced" on another issue (the airbalance CV thingy" It never ruined any of your games did it?

It ruined one game I had back with UV. At the time you resorted to your timeworn "You just don't now how to play correctly!" response.

Most of what you complain about never ruined any of your games.
I never used 12 div to invade an atoll
I never used the super supply in SRA
I never used ASW TF with more then 6 ships.
I don't assign missions to airgroups the turn they transfer (and yes I get caught on the ground by opponents who transfer in response but do assign missions the same turn I just dont cry about it)
I don't put all my CV in one TF (learned the hard way not to do that)

Point is, all that stuff is in the system, and a whole lot more, and it does spoil play for me.

Exactly what bad design elements caused you to debark your CV groups onto Tarawa in Jan 1942? Too much intell?

Any land-based air assets within range of enemy CV TFs must be a good deal for the guy with the land-based air assets. Surely you understand that, Russ.

Game going too fast? What part of the poor design made you (an acknowledged expert on the Pacific War and Warfare in General) decide that Tarawa was tenable for the Allies in Jan 1942?

I never said it was tenable, though it probably is unless the Japanese commit a lot of assets to storming it in force. That takes time and involves losses. A war of attrition is one thing the Japanese cannot afford, the faster that happens the better it is for the Allies, not the Japanese, and the time spent trying to take Tarawa/Makin is time not available to do other things. Surely you understand that, Russ.

Oh, and you're back to ad hominem pleas again.

Had you defeated the IJN? Were the Japanese airforces tied down or destroyed by the bloody air model? I hope everyone who follows your criticisms has taken the time to read your AAR. Was it WO 0/0 taking control of your mind? The point here is you need to understand how the game works before you can post how it does not work. It is an Operational Level game with Tactical visual aids. (the ship combat and air combat) The ships are not actually lined up in 2 opposing rows. (you do know that correct) "Surprise" does not mean "Oh golly I'm surprised and can be shot at for free now" Fatigue is not just the pilot and so on.

That's nothing but babble to me. I've no idea where you're coming from. Nowhere happy, for sure, but otherwise I don't know.

You often complain about the design and testing (well actually it seems that is all you do)
You have never posted any proof that you can use WITP and conduct a simple Operation.

False.

You'd actually have to play the game in order to post about it's weakness. I mean play as Japan from start to finish and post a list of everything thats wrong. Find an Allied player and post your great "Everything you always wanted to know about what is wrong with WITP but were afraid to ask" AAR. But you'd have to prove while doing so you knew what you were doing. How all this excess supply and transport allowed you to win autovictory in 1943. (knock out China in 42 and all that)

I wouldn't even try. I can only go by what other posts in that regard.

Just use this AAR to expose all the design faults. Everyone will know right were to look as case by case point by point you demonstrate the hows and wheres of game impact and poor model and bad design. No one can confuse an AAR with SPAM. I'd like you to play with Ron S. because he is a pretty good Allied player but he belives in the Japanese supply abundance. You use it to defeat him OK? Put up or shut up. Don't say "another poster said" I want to see "In my experiance that I post right here and now I did this and this with that and that and look what happened" Stop trolling other peoples posted problems and adopting them as your own. You don't know exaclty what cause the problem. You have to be able to duplicate it (and eliminate player error)

Maybe we can get Spooky or Rougeusmc (or even Mr Frag [X(])to host the game files so the herd can follow every blow in this clash of titans to prove how mucked up WITP really is.

You're still in ad hominem mode.

don't bother with the Christmas cards or other clutter. Keep the AAR consise and to the point. Explain what you are doing and why and with what and why (you know your normal detail only this time you'll be using your own experiances not something you've read somewhere and adopted as a new pet) It should be easy for you to drive WITP down to it's own destruction and ruin as you masterfully wield your way to victory. Just picture me weeping as you get that Auto victory that always eludes me.

To keep it honest both players have to agree that the loser can not post any complaints about WITP for a year. (maybe too harsh. They must wear the sig line "I suck at WITP" for 6 months)

Anything else? Have you run dry already? [8|]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

That's precisely what you're doing, playing a game. And more power to you. My purpose is to try and improve the games you play. Now to me, that sounds like a win-win deal, but apparently you see it otherwise.

Would you mind explaining to me how and why you see it that way?

I'll acknowledge up front that message boards are an imperfect form of communication, and that I'm still an admitted newb. All the same, the impression I've received is that you're more interested in trashing the game for the sake of trashing it. Perhaps that's incorrect, but that's certainly what has come across.

If you're truly interested in improving the game, I'd suggest a change of tactics. Lighten up a little & acknowledge some of the positive aspects of the game. And the hard work, by a small company, that went into it.

Look at it from Matrix's & 2 x 3's viewpoint - are they more likely to listen to Mogami, who is appreciative of the game & them, or someone who is extremely critical of them? It's just human nature.

That's a joke, right?

Mogami is a company kind of guy. He seems to like (possibly he requires) structure, perhaps he likes to be told what to do and how to do it and like that. I don't know. I do know there are many people in life of that ilk, in fact most people fall into that category to one degree or another, though some (many?) don't "like" it much, which explains why I'm forever running into people who are miserable doing what they do. But that's something else.

Anyway, I happen to be different in that respect. I dont necessarily say what others want to hear, only what I actually think, no matter where or how the chips fall. (Within reason, always. I don't tell jokes at funerals, for instance.)

The "vitriol" is getting tiresome? Which "vitriol" might that be? The part about the game you enjoy playing so much doesn't make good sense? Well, I'm sorry, but that's exactly what the game makes: no good sense.

The vitriol directed at Matrix, 2x3 and seemingly anyone who disagrees with you.

Well, you can call it vitriol, I call it plain speaking.

No, you won't. You'll come back and treat us to further little nuggets of wisdom . . . as time wears on.

You got me there! [:D]

Told you so. [:)]

ad hominem mode.

Hi, Ah OK so when asked to provide your own experiance not quote out of context other peoples problems (you know some of the "bugs" you attached yourself to were when I got the file from the other person things like "My airgroups wont fly" You pounced on airgroup design flaws... actual cause....group set to 0 range Another case "my airgroups won't fly" you pounced I got file ....airfield size 1 "My airgroups won't fly" you pounced I got file..airfield large enough for offensive missions but too small for extended range and target exceeded normal range
"My TF won't unload" you pounced.....I got file.....it was a escort TF
"My minelayers don't work" you pounced...I got file...minelayers were working but you don't get the text message when the target is a base hex.
In fact a lot of your pouncing is not a bug or design issue but simple things that I correct and the player goes on his merry way never to post again on the subject but you never stop. . Thats why I request you to provide detailed examples from your own play. And oh did you just say the CV airbalance thingy ruined a game in UV???

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ad hominem mode.

Hi, Ah OK so when asked to provide your own experiance not quote out of context other peoples problems (you know some of the "bugs" you attached yourself to were when I got the file from the other person things like "My airgrousp wont fly" You pounced on airgroup design flaws... actual cause....group set to 0 range Another case "my airgroups won't fly" you pounced I got file ....airfield size 1 "My airgroups won't fly" you pounced I got file..airfield large enough for offensive missions but too small for extended range and target exceeded normal range
"My TF won't unload" you pounced.....I got file.....it was a escort TF
"My minelayers don't work" you pounced...I got file...minelayers were working but you don't get the text message when the target is a base hex.

Except for the minelayer issue (but I've had other similar issues with minelayers which I've duly reported) all which you mention has happened to me in play, and I've posted comments/examples of same.

Either way, that wouldn't excuse your ad hominem pleas.

In fact a lot of your pouncing is not a bug or desing issue.

What's left? My imagination?

Thats why I request you to provide detailed examples from your own play. And oh did you just say the CV airbalance thingy ruined a game in UV???

More or less. It was my first go-round with that game, and afterward everyone told me it was "well known" that you couldn't have an historical Coral Sea, or some such blather, due to the way naval air combat was modeled. And they were absolutely right! [8|]

In a nutshell, my overall beef with Gary's game is it will not allow players to play historically without resort to countless hourserules, and even then the combat models suck all day Sunday, the logistics rules make little sense, and the OOB offered stock is ridiculously flawed.

The game encourages players to play ahistorically, at least if they're out to "win." Which is fine as far as it goes, assuming the players just want a game and not an historical simulation. The thing is, I want the latter. I'm tired of buying titles from Wargames Lite.

My- Personal, openion on the CV airgroups, is that:

Up to Aug 43(ish), their is a great deal of parity in the CV airgroupes capabalitys, that is to say if the numbers are equil, they are about as deadly aganst each other. It can be dificult for one side to acheave a compleat advantage over the other, unles they can muster a considerable numbers advantage.

After Aug(ish) 43, the Allies with their Hellcats and the Brit F4U's, have a decided edge, realy it's no contest aganst the Zero's from the Japanese CV's, and the Allies so out number the Japanese in terms of CV's is well, a done deal at sea realy.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Every time a bug is reported the testers attempt to recreate it and when it can reproduced it is fixed.

Maybe, maybe not. In any event the company has apparently "moved on" to other projects, and the people who bought this game are left to pretty much hold the bag.

Everytime I hear whining crap like this, it invalidates everything else written by the author. You will not see reason, give credit where credit is due, or do anything other than accept an end conclusion that you fervently believe in, but others do not. Given an opportunity to rectify the problem you perceive, you will not take the opportunity in game to address it, you simply want to complain and agitate for a change that adheres 100 percent to your own beliefs. Anything else for you is unacceptable. That's childish. If you are truly committed to "fixing" WitP, go create a mod. You can address every issue you perceive and share it with others of like mind. In other words, put up, or shut up.

Mike Wood continues to work on bugs, and an editor ensures that there is some way to redress the problems in the game. If you look at some of the alternate scenarios, different modders have worked on (and found) ways to get around most problems you perceive in the system.

"Supply? Is there a problem with supply? All's well here!"
Fine, reduce starting supplies, reduce resource centers, reduce capacity of AK's, AP's, etc. You can do all that and more with the editor (and some modders, rather than whining have done it).

"What do you mean there's too much Japanese shipping, and that it doesn't work with the logistics model?"
Remove/mod whatever you want from the OOB. You make it exactly what you want. If you spent time designing a mod tailored to your own prejudices, rather than whining on the boards, you'd probably have the appropriate mod already.

"Ports? What do you mean they're too easy to use? They're not too easy for me to use."
Make less of them, make them smaller, lower SPS's, increase consumption, etc. There are lots of ways to put more strain on ports.

"What do mean naval bombardments are misused? You just don't know how to defend your ports properly!"
BS. Everyone whines about this, but put a 16" shell on a target, and that sucker is toast. He11, put a 5" shell on plane and it is toast. Guadalcanal was devastated by a single attack. If a base is within 10 miles of open ocean, spotting aircraft plus BB = elephant feet. (Side joke: Where are an elephant's sex organs? Answer: In his feet, if he steps on you, you're screwed!)

For some locations, it was not possible to hit with them IRL. By definition, all ports (and a great many airbases) were in range of naval bombardments. Your complaint stems merely from the fact that it was done only once and that is the standard used in the game. Doing it once established the capability and potential. If you are idiot enough to let it happen by not defending against it, shame on you, not on the game.

"Too many B-17s? Our studies indicate otherwise."
I can adjust the replacement rate of B-17's all I want, I just open the editor.

"The Tony's come too early and are too effective? We studied that closely, and our experts say. . . ."
Ditto.

"Japan's already conquered China and India by the middle of 1942? Hey, you never heard of what-ifs?"
There are lots of approaches to take here, but you'd rather whine about what doesn't match your reality.

"Somebody's stacked twelve divisions on Tarawa? Ease up, fella, it's only a game after all."
Hey, if my opponent as the Allies (or Japan for that matter) is stupid enough to put 12 divisions on Tarawa, I'm not going to whine about it. I can see that it would be impossible IRL, but the impact on the game is negligible. Once you get past a certain point, you do what the RL Generals and Admirals did with well defended bases, you bypass them. ON a scale of 1 (who cares) to 10 (Ouch), stacking on atolls is a 1.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Stealing your popcorn!

WB, glad to see ur alive.

First this

You're still in ad hominem mode

then

Mogami is a company kind of guy. He seems to like (possibly he requires) structure, perhaps he likes to be told what to do and how to do it and like that. I don't know. I do know there are many people in life of that ilk, in fact most people fall into that category to one degree or another, though some (many?) don't "like" it much, which explains why I'm forever running into people who are miserable doing what they do. But that's something else

.


Followed by this.

Either way, that wouldn't excuse your ad hominem pleas.

Complain about ad Hominm attack, launch one yourself, complain again. Seems rather inconsistant.

In a nutshell, my overall beef with Gary's game is it will not allow players to play historically without resort to countless hourserules, and even then the combat models suck all day Sunday, the logistics rules make little sense, and the OOB offered stock is ridiculously flawed.

Hi ROFLMAO Silly rabbit. How else do you get a player to play historically unless you agree to house rules. (agreeing to house rules translates into agreeing what is historical) They are not countless

1. Turn 1 no landing on bases Japanese may only move to within 4 hexes
2. No port attacks other then PH
3. Both sides must always escort TF with loaded troops
4. Both sides must always have air cover over TF with loaded troops intending on landing on enemy base opposed or not
5. ASW TF limited to 6 ships
6. No player can move LCU or TF within 10 hexes of enemy held map edge
7. Japanese may not move LCU into Karachi or San Francisco or USA (see above)
8. no conducting offensive air missions from overloaded airfields
9 no flying offensive missions on turn airgroup transfer base
10. No moving LCU or airgroups between HQ without paying PP (includes non restricted Cen Pac must transfer to South Pac before moving to base owned by South Pac)(note Japanese SAA HQ controls all non restricted IJA units. Reinforcements that arrive in Home Island are assigned a HQ and they must move to base owned by that HQ or pay PP to change


There you go 10 rules that make WITP almost completly historic and none of them require any special explanation.

Last Word!

-F-

No it wasn't.

[:'(]

Wow. A thread too durn hot for me. I fold.

So, how about a harmless thread that can't instigate rancor: do you think Pres. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq? [;)] For today's debate, citizens of France and Germany will take the "Pro" (pro war) side and citizens of the US and UK will take the "Con" side. Today's moderator will be North Korea, who will rule on inconvenient observations of fact or turns of logic in their usual even handed way.