Lunacy or Shrewdness?

[Nemo121]

Well I've read what everyone has said here... and a friend has told me of some of what has been said in my opponent's thread... nothing which would breach FOW just told me that DavidB says I've been whining about four-engined bombers ( ??? [8|] He must have incredible powers of discernment to see such whining here.The closest I think I've come is to dwell on the number of four-engined bombers I've destroyed recently) and that, generally, people are saying lots of stuff there that, quite frankly, they should have the guts to say to my face if they're going to say them behind my back.

My conclusions are as follows:
1. A lot of people posting here seem to buy into the widespread belief that pop psychology has equipped everyone to believe they can analyse motivations and throw around words like ego ( and I would argue you would actually be referring to the id or at the very least the super-ego ny59giants and not the ego ) in casting all sorts of motivations etc on others whilst, at the same time, ignoring what the person is actually flatly stating are their motivations. This is a most unfortunate state of affairs but so long as what one says is ignored in preference to the transferences various people have ( one reason why a common question for psychiatrists etc who want to get to know a patient's outlook is to get them to talk about people they know... What they say has almost nothing to do with how the others really are and everything to do with how the patient REALLY is inside themselves) then one is helpless. Much of what is being said here and in my opponent's thread ( from the little excerpts of people's posts re: my motivations which I've been shown by my friend) has everything to do with the myriad transferences people have developed than it does with the objective reality of the situation.

2. Between people who say one thing here and then something quite different in tone in my opponent's thread and an opponent who continue to turn down compromises because they don't, in his opinion, offer something which I've always offered ( the continued arrival of UK and African troops) I think I'd be baffled if it weren't for the fact that the strange vagaries of the human mind are the grist of my daily mill. As it is the only realistic course is indifference ( something I'm not particularly good at as being misrepresented really annoys me).

3. Since I invaded India under the impression that one set of dynamics would rule and Trey claims to have defended under the impression that a very different set of dynamics would rule I offered to "go back" to April 1st, spare Karachi and allow any troops there and any reinforcements which arrived over the next 3 or 4 years to be shipped out to Australia free of any interference. Trey wrote back saying that he hadn't even bothered to read my proposal and then, again, stated that he wasn't going to accept anything which prevented British reinforcements from arriving... which baffles me since even from the first day of the game I have explicitly stated that even if India fell I would be happy for UK reinforcements to arrive and would even allow him to recapture Karachi with a token force in order to activate said reinforcements. When your opponent doesn't even bother reading what you write and then turns it down for not offering something you've ALWAYS offered... well, it's a difficult situation.

4. I  don't give a damn about winning or losing. I've always played the underdog since that was the more difficult side. I enjoy having a difficult game. Winning or losing is irrelevant to me. Hell many moons ago when I proposed a WiR game to my opponent I stated I wanted to play the Germans in 43 or, preferably, 44 as I wanted to have to fight from a very underdog position as I enjoyed that more than an even fight. I'm playing as the Japanese here because they are the underdog over the course of the war. If this was a 1942 scenario only I would have wanted to play as the Allies. Of course the reality of human interaction is that people's transferences are already formed and, as always, say more about those people's needs and less about the reality of the object onto which those transferences are mapped so very little I say will actually be read properly or, if read properly it will be dismissed out of hand or disbelieved in order to avoid introducing any cognitive dissonance into the transference mapped onto me. Still, on the off chance that someone might happen along without their mind already made up I wanted to explicate things one last time.


5. And perhaps the most important point... Whether it was right or wrong I thought we were playing this game within very wide parameters but that within those hard parameters "reasonableness" and precedence would be used to determine grey areas which arose during play. My opponent was under no such presumption but never communicated that to me. End result I made decisions based on the belief that we were operating under one context. My opponent made decisions based on the knowledge that another context applied even though he had never communicated that to me. Given the situation maintaining the status quo maintains his context and continues to move away from the one I believed applied. This obviously benefits him now but will not always be the case.


So, in conclusion, the situation is that I really do feel that my opponent has done something completely outside of the spirit of the rules we agreed to when we began the game. To some of you that may be meaningless but to me it is not. In any case my opponent wishes to continue under this context and isn't willing to countenance what I view to be a reasonable application of the spirit of our parameters. He points to the letter of the rules. I think that as a lawyer my opponent thinks the letter of the law is the most important thing. As a doctor I literally couldn't count the number of times I've broken the letter of the law in order to benefit patients. Perhaps our two professions tend to engender very different viewpoints to this issue. Doctors worship results ( aka live patients) and if you bend or break a rule which is less important than a living patient then so be it. So, we'll never agree and it is, I think, at this stage, best that we no longer discuss this issue. It is close to breaking our game off entirely and that would be a pity. It has, however, established precedent and that will need to be borne in mind.


P.s. Oh, AndyMac, my opponent tells me he is moving the North Pacific HQ so he gets every US unit which later arrives for that HQ at no PP cost. I'm quite sure that, as usual, most people will find nothing wrong with that if my opponent does it. If I did it I'm sure the howls would wake the dogs in the next town. It is, of course, simply social dynamics at work but no less frustrating for that.

P.p.s. Also just thought I'd clarify that I sent the turn file to Trey over two days ago and haven't heard back since. The AAR is up to date and any delay in further turns being played is not originating with me. .

[treespider]

In the third paragraph of the first page of this thread is the following statement:

We have agreed to have no house rules at all since V1.795 seems to be a major improvement in most areas but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it. The example I used for this was air-dropped mining missions being immune to CAP and thus being off limits. I'm glad to say Trey agreed. We've also agreed to keep at it unless something truly catastrophic happens to one or other side (e.g. KB being sunk in its entirety by mid-december as happened under my NikMod game with the Allies getting close to 5 times the bomb hits per sortie relative to the elite KB pilots... and the reason I ceded the laurels in that game).

My interpretation of this statement is that this was an anything goes game.

The game was designed to allow reinforcements and supply to appear in Karachi, even if it was under siege. So what's the problem?

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

people are saying lots of stuff there that, quite frankly, they should have the guts to say to my face if they're going to say them behind my back.

In fairness, Mog did ask people to refrain from posting anything upsetting on this thread (see #172, p.6)

ORIGINAL: treespider

In the third paragraph of the first page of this thread is the following statement:

We have agreed to have no house rules at all since V1.795 seems to be a major improvement in most areas but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it. The example I used for this was air-dropped mining missions being immune to CAP and thus being off limits. I'm glad to say Trey agreed. We've also agreed to keep at it unless something truly catastrophic happens to one or other side (e.g. KB being sunk in its entirety by mid-december as happened under my NikMod game with the Allies getting close to 5 times the bomb hits per sortie relative to the elite KB pilots... and the reason I ceded the laurels in that game).

My interpretation of this statement is that this was an anything goes game.

The game was designed to allow reinforcements and supply to appear in Karachi, even if it was under siege. So what's the problem?

To Nemo's mind, the problem's probably the "but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it" part.

Whether indeed the Karachi thing is broken is another matter, of course.

[Nemo121]

Timtom is entirely correct.

When someone reading the thread questioned my use of Shock Attack + Pursue in the Burma Road I initially disagreed with him. I then thought about it and realised that, yes, it was unreasonable and an exploit of a game mechanic which was broken. I then contacted Trey and agreed to give up a MAJOR advantage which I felt I had gained through unwittingly exploiting a broken game mechanic.

Now I feel that Trey has knowingly exploited a broken game mechanic to Star Trek in troops and I feel like I've been taken for a damned fool for giving up such an important advantage earlier when Trey is now exploiting a far greater, to my mind, broken game mechanic to his own advantage.

[Ron Saueracker]

"Don't get me wrong Nemo, I've been impressed at how well you have demonstrated what -can- be accomplished in this game (I think WitP has needed something exactly like this AAR for a long time)."

Well, this and other AARs well illustrate the massive scale of design oversights which allow this kind of Parker Brothers result. There is absolutely no way this could have been accomplished in real life. Real life does not have all the exploits we enjoy/despise here.

As to whether or not Trey is outside the bounds of the spirit of the game I think not. Tit for tat, goose and gander and all that rot. The game has no house rules so the game design is the only parameter. If you guys start demandnding concessions etc now I'd say it is time to end the game and start a new one with house rules made clear at the outset. Too much damage has been done to the balance of the game over Karachi as it is...no going back. My opinion anyway.

Soldier on...good AAR and game considering it is a lunacy style stock game.

[Ron Saueracker]

To Nemo's mind, the problem's probably the "but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it" part.

Using the 1st turn move bonus for all Japanese forces is not exploiting a broken game mechanic? We all know that this move bonus is to allow KB and subs to reach Hawaii on Turn One, not to move the entire Japanese military through enemy territory unmolested which normally would have triggered a military response. Give me a break. This game should have halted by Trey on turn 1.

This game has hundreds of broken, poorly designed or simply overlooked mechanics to single out the reinforcement of Karachi mechanic. Going for Karachi was gamey due to its' special nature, so to say the current situation at Karachi is gamey is hypocritical.

Don't mean to be harsh here but Trey is being unjustly punished in my opinion.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

To Nemo's mind, the problem's probably the "but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it" part.

Using the 1st turn move bonus for all Japanese forces is not exploiting a broken game mechanic? We all know that this move bonus is to allow KB and subs to reach Hawaii on Turn One, not to move the entire Japanese military through enemy territory unmolested which normally would have triggered a military response. Give me a break. This game should have halted by Trey on turn 1.

This game has hundreds of broken, poorly designed or simply overlooked mechanics to single out the reinforcement of Karachi mechanic. Going for Karachi was gamey due to its' special nature, so to say the current situation at Karachi is gamey is hypocritical.

Don't mean to be harsh here but Trey is being unjustly punished in my opinion.

I don't often 100% agree or disagree with Ron, but I agree here.

The India problems/issues that developed should not have been surprises. (Nor are they realistic until the discovery of dilythium crystals 300 years in the future AND a cloaking device to cover turn 1).

Live Long and Prosper.

Flipper

[ny59giants]

A lot of people posting here seem to buy into the widespread belief that pop psychology has equipped everyone to believe they can analyse motivations and throw around words like ego ( and I would argue you would actually be referring to the id or at the very least the super-ego ny59giants and not the ego ) in casting all sorts of motivations etc on others whilst, at the same time, ignoring what the person is actually flatly stating are their motivations. This is a most unfortunate state of affairs but so long as what one says is ignored in preference to the transferences various people have ( one reason why a common question for psychiatrists etc who want to get to know a patient's outlook is to get them to talk about people they know... What they say has almost nothing to do with how the others really are and everything to do with how the patient REALLY is inside themselves) then one is helpless. Much of what is being said here and in my opponent's thread ( from the little excerpts of people's posts re: my motivations which I've been shown by my friend) has everything to do with the myriad transferences people have developed than it does with the objective reality of the situation.

I would say Nemo, that besides you, I "may" be the only other person on this message board that works in the mental health field. I have a Master's in Community Agency counseling with licensure and did not get into the specifics per Freud as I was trying to use words that others would understand. I may not be a doctor, but I assess people (current only child/adolscence in a crisis situation) for a living.

As a observation and not from how you responded to my previous post, I feel that others have not defended you, at times, because some of your post "seem" to come across like you are trying to prove your intellectual superiority to others. I have read Trey's AAR and other threads about various "game mechanics." Instead of trying to prove yourself, you may try what I have to do with difficult clients and their families - a one down approach.

I hope your other game with you as the Allies is using the extended map. Karachi is not as difficult to take![:D]

I do hope your game does continue, because like Andy vs. PzB, it is needed to help refine strategy and give Matrix feedback on how the game can be improved.

[Ron Saueracker]

I do hope your game does continue, because like Andy vs. PzB, it is needed to help refine strategy and give Matrix feedback on how the game can be improved.

This is the most important issue I feel. Keep hammering away for the game's sake.

[Redd]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I do hope your game does continue, because like Andy vs. PzB, it is needed to help refine strategy and give Matrix feedback on how the game can be improved.

This is the most important issue I feel. Keep hammering away for the game's sake.

I couldn't agree more. [;)][8D][:D]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

To Nemo's mind, the problem's probably the "but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it" part.

Using the 1st turn move bonus for all Japanese forces is not exploiting a broken game mechanic? We all know that this move bonus is to allow KB and subs to reach Hawaii on Turn One, not to move the entire Japanese military through enemy territory unmolested which normally would have triggered a military response. Give me a break. This game should have halted by Trey on turn 1.

This game has hundreds of broken, poorly designed or simply overlooked mechanics to single out the reinforcement of Karachi mechanic. Going for Karachi was gamey due to its' special nature, so to say the current situation at Karachi is gamey is hypocritical.

FWIW, for my personal opinion on these matter, see post #6, p.1 on this threat - sorry, Freudian slip - thread, and post #2609, p.87 on PzB's AAR thread. [:)]

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: treespider

In the third paragraph of the first page of this thread is the following statement:

We have agreed to have no house rules at all since V1.795 seems to be a major improvement in most areas but we both have agreed that if we come across something which is "broken" in the game then we won't try to exploit it. The example I used for this was air-dropped mining missions being immune to CAP and thus being off limits. I'm glad to say Trey agreed. We've also agreed to keep at it unless something truly catastrophic happens to one or other side (e.g. KB being sunk in its entirety by mid-december as happened under my NikMod game with the Allies getting close to 5 times the bomb hits per sortie relative to the elite KB pilots... and the reason I ceded the laurels in that game).

My interpretation of this statement is that this was an anything goes game.

The game was designed to allow reinforcements and supply to appear in Karachi, even if it was under siege. So what's the problem?

My interpretation is a little different. Nemo has said that they would rule out moves that violate the laws of Newtonian physics, like air-mining missions being immune to attack in hostile airspace. I am with Nemo in saying that re-locating the North Pacific HQ to allow the arrival without cost of US ground troops into Karachi violates this principal. That said, the teleportation of Commonwealth troops is something that Nemo should have realized when he first made plans to capture Karachi (They have to appear somewhere.) If Nemo knew he was going that far, he should have asked for the extended map.

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

P.s. Oh, AndyMac, my opponent tells me he is moving the North Pacific HQ so he gets every US unit which later arrives for that HQ at no PP cost. I'm quite sure that, as usual, most people will find nothing wrong with that if my opponent does it. If I did it I'm sure the howls would wake the dogs in the next town. It is, of course, simply social dynamics at work but no less frustrating for that.

I view that as a clear exploit in a normal game.

I know we disagree on karachi and the nature of teleporting so I wont revisit that debate.

But paying the 300 PP to change a command HQ and getting literally 1,000's of PP points of units arriving in Karachi 60 days earlier than if they were transferred individually from the USA is beyond the pale to me in a normal game. (although this is a lunacy game so I dont know 100% where I stand on this one but my gut instinct is its not even to be condoned in an anarchy game)

[mogami]

Hi, Newtonian physics have not been violated. (by allied player)
First the Japanese have only 3 major non restricted HQ SAA/Burma area and combined Fleet these units never have to pay PP to deploy to areas other then their historic areas. Japan wins this contest.

Northern Pacific HQ is a major HQ once PP have been paid to change it's location it becomes a new HQ (rename it in your mind to "US in India HQ") Now all existing Northern Pacific bases and units will be without a major HQ untill PP are paid to change bases and units (you must have a unit from other HQ present in base before base can change) So the Allied player must still pay PP to gain HQ benifits in Northern Pacific (thepoints everyone thinks he is saving by sending units to India for free)

Once the Allies decide to transfer a HQ they are freed from the historic deployment areas (same as Japan) but they must pay PP to restore command and control (Japan does not )

It is a much shorter distance to send units from east coast via suez to Indian Ocean then it is to send them across the central/South pacific thus they appear sooner.

The only distortion of Newtionian physicis is Japan thinking they can attack and defeat an entire off map region by attacking a single on map hex.

[Andy Mac]

Mogami,

I dont disagree with most of what you say and without revisiting it at length dont agree with Nemo on the whole teleporting into Karachi issue (as he is well aware) and I really dont want to revisit whether taking Karachi should or should not be possible or if the designers didnt want it taken why didnt they just give it a massive big garrison to prevent it being taken etc etc

On the specifics of transferring a major command HQ my annoyance is that by transferring NORPAC HQ to SEAC allows all units in the reinforcement que to suddenly re que for Karachi. So if an Inf RCT is 3 days from arriving at SF overnight it becomes 3 days from reinforcing Karachi by changing its command HQ to be reporting to SEAC. I also dont like that all subsequent reinforcements appear at Karachi without having to pay the PP's for the individual units.

I am one of the biggest proponents of the 60 day pay PP's to change the HQ of a single unit to allow it to transit methodology - I believe it is right and proper and wish it applied to to air groups as well, I also have no issue with them appearing at Karachi and wish it could operate the other way as well I also do not accept Nemos presumption that the city is besieged because I believe Karachi represents more than just a city (this is all old ground)

BUT

In the specific case of a command HQ changing all subsequent reinforcements I come down that even on a lunacy game for me thats a step to far unless agreed up front for me its an exploit to get round the PP cost system.

Even if I wasnt questioning it on PP grounds I still think this is an issue for the rules in this particular game specifically if any units were due to arrive within 60 days and were due to arrive in SF now appear in Karachi on the same countdown. Had they reset to 60 days I would not be arguing this particuler point althout I would probably still count it as beyond the limit because of the PP point. (However I should point out that this second point may not be an issue if there were no NORPAC units in the que when he changed the command HQ which is possible as NORPAC doesnt get many units as reinforcements)

But this isnt my game or my rules so I guess I will but out now.

Andy

[Capt. Harlock]

It is a much shorter distance to send units from east coast via suez to Indian Ocean then it is to send them across the central/South pacific thus they appear sooner.

The game mechanic insight is much appreciated. However, going through Suez means going through the Med, and no one is going to be crazy enough to send troop convoys through the entire length of the Med in spring 1942. They will have to go around Cape Horn, just as the British Eighth Army reinforcements did historically. That is a significantly longer trip.

[Andy Mac]

Well we are in Nov 42 now in this game as we speak 8th Army is starting to pursue the Afrika Corps so the Med is open again (almost)
 
Also as only 30 Corps and a fraction of the DAF pursued Rommel for logistical reasons that means damn near 2 full Corps (13 and 10 Corps) are available from 8th Army to reinforce forces already there in PaiForce 9th and 10th Armies.........Hell the Polish Army has 2 Divs in Iran at this point that because of Stalingrad are about to become available.
 
DAF has c 100 Sqns (13 US, 13 SAF, even 2 Greeks Sqns and cannot forward deploy a fraction of them) and c half a million support troops in the MEast that are about to come off the line not to mention occupation forces in Syria and garrisons in East Afrika that suddnely have a much lower threat.
 
In game we only see 9th Australian as a result of El Alamein and Stalingrad but with India almost conquered there are 3 or 4 battle hardened Indian Divs available from ME Command.
 
None of this is represented as outside of the scope because no one really thought India was a realistic target which is one reason why I dont mind anything that keeps that front open.

[Andy Mac]

p.s. sorry Nemo shouldnt interupt your AAR with historical musings that 90% of the forum know more than me about anyway [:D][:D][:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

The only distortion of Newtionian physicis is Japan thinking they can attack and defeat an entire off map region by attacking a single on map hex.

Agree 100%.[&o]

[skrewball]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Using the 1st turn move bonus for all Japanese forces is not exploiting a broken game mechanic? We all know that this move bonus is to allow KB and subs to reach Hawaii on Turn One, not to move the entire Japanese military through enemy territory unmolested which normally would have triggered a military response. Give me a break. This game should have halted by Trey on turn 1.

You can't say that in history...you don't know...

- 180 Carrier planes attacked Pearl Harbor by complete surprise. Even though they were spotted on Radar and an enemy submarine was sunk before hand.

- 3.2 Million German troops were massed on the boarder with the USSR. Daily recon missions were flown over Russian territory and still the Russians were suprised by the attack.

I don't see why people complain about the 1st turn movement so much. So...the Japanese accelerates his aquisions by a few weeks. Those bases are going to fall anyways.