Lunacy or Shrewdness?

[Przemcio231]

Well why they Complain...
 
- ad 1 Well they spoted the planes on Radar but foght it was a flight of B-17's and even if they would sound the Alarm nothing would change... Well Maybe Oklachoma would sink as West Virginia  not capsize... the US Fighters would still be destroyed on the ground as one houer Warning would not alow them to be armed and fueled.
 
-  ad 2  Well Stalin knew about the concentration and he knew that Hitler was planning a strike but he was also planning to do the same and the Germans were quicker... the only thing that suprised Stalin was the pace of German Attack and inability of his troops to resist...
 
 
-ad 3 Listen if you play Non Historical 1st turn there are some things you forgot to add 1st - in the game you know exactly were the Allied units station wich bases are empty and how strong are the Garrisons there... and Japs didn't had that knowlege 2nd All Jap Players forbid Allies to move anything... why??? the Brits were ready to Lunch "Operation Matador" but McArthur dissalowed sending US B-17 to Cam Rhan for Recon wich was crucial for that Ops... In reality only bad luck coused that lots of planes were destroyed on the Ground in the Phillipnes as Fog Prevented Jap Planes from attacking early in the Morning and when they finaly arrived the cought USFEAF planes refueling after patrol and replacemnt planes right before take-off... and if you playing non historical start why not allow B-17's from the Phillipines strike Jap Airfields stocked with fueld and Armed planes[:D] As for some movment on Turn one... don't be rediculus Japs landed the way they did becouse those landing sites allowed them to keep their intentions of attacking a gues... Let's see a convoy of troops with escort heading into Kendari ( typical non historical Jap move ) goeing passed Meando , Amboina would be easly spotted and the intention of Japs here would be clear in history the Ships in the Chinia sea could be goeing to Invade Siam not Malaya and the Brits were ready for it...
 
- ad 4 Stock game should only be played with Historical 1st turn as non-historical brig up some redicalus situation becouse the Allies can't even opose it as KB and its Uber-CAP is inpregnable in the Early stages of the War and the AF captured in the DEI are instantly loaded with Zeros and 2E's locking up the DEI... I played NEMO and he used this strategy but that was NIK-mode and i was able to smash the KB in Late December... and this happend only becouse we were playing Nik mode not stock...
 

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.

Well maybe becouse they want to have some fun defending those bases and not sitting doeing nothing becouse the DEI is locked down on turn 1, Subs in Manila sunk by Air Attack !!!!! Few Divisions landning in the PI on turn one overruning everything in a Week , the Same for Malaya. Japs happyly landing in the Pacific with no chances of stoping them...

[Andy Mac]

Personally I dont mind the Japnese teleport 1st turn as long as all parties understand that hitting targets other than PH and any ahistorical landings in SOPAC or SRA or West Malaya mean that Surprise is OFF.

Political dithering could have delayed a reaction but Surprise is supposed to reflect the bad luck at PI and the genuine surprise at PH and is too powerfull for other attacks where surprise was no possible IMO.

[Nemo121]

I believe it is quite possible for people to defend the important holdings in DEI etc for significantly longer than is normally managed. However, obviously, it is more difficult to improve one's own game than to cast aspersions. That's a personal opinion obviously but one I intend to put to the test in my own Allied game.
 
As to the assertion that the Japanese would have been attackedif their troop convoys sailed close to DEI and Pacific bases. The Dutch asked for the activation of their treaty with the US and UK once Japanese troop ships passed a given series of points. Activation of this treaty would have resulted in a state of war and allowed attacks on these convoys at sea. This request was made on December 4th and was turned down by both UK an US authorities SO there is precedent for convoys being spotted and yet not being attacked. History's a lot more complicated than assuming people would have chosen the "best course" even if they were in possesion of all of the facts. Many times people made terrible decisions even when they had all the relevant facts. So I think it is possible to make a case for both options ( they'd be attacked and they wouldn't) based on provable historical precedent.
 
 
FWIW I can see the argument for turning surprise off if attacks outside of PH and Phillipines are being made but there are equally strong arguments for allowing it. I could go either way. In my game as Allies I opted to allow unlimited port attacks, unlimited first turn movement for the Japanese and Surprise ON since I figure the Japanese need all the help they can get and I play the game to be challenged ( fairly ) not to win easily so giving the Japanese a bit of a leg up for one day is of little consequence over the next 4 years. If it wrecks the Allied plan then the Allied player must be pretty incompetent given the material largesse from which they suffer, IMO. It is easy to craft a plan to deal with the "worst case outcome" from Day 1 surprise.
 
 
AndyMac,
No worries. Muse away. Nothing's happening here anyway. Last I heard from my opponent he was saying he might quit after I sent him an email to clarify house rules on other issues of concern. These essentially break down to:
1. corsair availability... corsairs can be used on carriers as soon as they arrive IMO.
2. four-engined bombers on naval attack ... I proposed a limit of 15,000 feet in order to avoid the spectre of B29s carpet-bombing everything in sight at 6,000 feet via the buggy modelling of naval attacks by level bombers with a high number of bombs carried... Trey vehemently opposes this. I thus gave way on this.
3. surprise attacking in the Soviet Union... My view is that while I was initially willing to give a 30 day warning if the situation at Karachi isn't being modified by what is reasonable but is being governed only by the limits of game mechanics then the situation at the Soviet Union should adhere to the same principles. A 30 day pre-attack activation is reasonable but attacking without warning is as "fair" as what is going on at Karachi ( and conforms fully to the game mechanics). As such if Karachi stays the way it is then I think no warning is required prior to attacking the Soviet Union.
4. mining efforts... No limits on same... Trey misread this and spat back that he wasn't going to agree to anything which allowed me to air-mine during his counter-offensives. I have pointed out that I can't air-mine and so all I meant was that there would be no limit on what we would mine or how much we'd mine using submarines and surface ships ( which are subject to interception) while aerial mining is still forbidden ( as it is not subject to interception)
5. A ban on splitting ground units to get rid of disruption/fatigue ( I haven't been doing this and consider it an exploit. Since I, frankly, don't trust Trey not to do it ( after the carry-on at Karachi) I would like its banning formalised so that I don't rely on "reasonableness" only to find out Trey finds this exploit reasonable as well.
6. Re-assignment of units ( e.g. Trey is having hordes of Chinese troops re-appear in the Soviet Union once they are destroyed by changing their HQ assignment. These Chinese troops then can fight in defence of the Soviet Union. ) I happen to think this is unreasonable. Trey disagrees and sees nothing wrong with it... Once these Chinese troops are desroyed in the Soviet Union I expect them to respawn in Karachi and be used to spearhead the re-conquest of India. Again, an example of a game mechanic being exploited which I felt was outruled by "reasonableness" but which I've found hasn't been.  Since Trey wants to keep this ability I've given way and allowed it to him.
 
With a horde of Chinese troops ( up to 60 Corps) due to appear in karachi 30 days after they are destroyed in Chungking/Chengtu, all of the queued US North pacific Units also due to arrive AND the normal UK and Indian troops I expect Trey to be able to retake India by the end of 1942.
 
 
Since he seems to disagree with every proposal I've made I've sent him back an email giving way on each of them EXCEPT the Soviet Union warning. I don't have to do it given the game mechanics. I was doing it in order to be reasonable. Trey isn't modifying anything at Karachi based on what is or isn't reasonable so I don't see why I should give him extra warning in the Soviet Union becase I think that is "reasonable". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We'll see what he says.
 
 
ny59,
I have stated my reasonings etc openly and explained myself when questioned. To assume there's anything else going on in spite of my statements is, of course, the choice open to anyone here. No amount of further explanation is going to change anyone else's mind.
 
 
Ron,
Trey signed off on the 1st turn move bonus and explicitly allowed it. The teleportation into Karachi and Chinese units being respawned at all points on the map was never explicitly allowed ( since I didn't know about it being possible) and violates many of the principles which we both agreed ruled other game mechanics out as being exploits. In any case I've given way on Karachi and pretty much every other issue he wishes to exploit. The only one I'm holding firm on is that he argues he isn't cheating by sticking to the game mechanics at Karachi with no recourse to what is fair or reasonable then I amn't cheating by applying the same standard to the Soviet Union ( thus eliminating any 30 day warning).

[Andy Mac]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

AndyMac,
No worries. Muse away. Nothing's happening here anyway. Last I heard from my opponent he was saying he might quit after I sent him an email to clarify house rules on other issues of concern. These essentially break down to:
1. corsair availability... corsairs can be used on carriers as soon as they arrive IMO.

Thats a normal clear HR (I typically agree to no Corsairs on USN Carriers unless USN loses 5- 6 fleet carriers in 42 to allow some flexibility if heavy casualties are sustained) I guess that means Jacks and Georges replacing Zekes in IJN Fighter Gps

2. four-engined bombers on naval attack ... I proposed a limit of 15,000 feet in order to avoid the spectre of B29s carpet-bombing everything in sight at 6,000 feet via the buggy modelling of naval attacks by level bombers with a high number of bombs carried... Trey vehemently opposes this. I thus gave way on this.

4E (especially PB47's and B24J's) I dont have a problem with on NA but B29's on naval attack are a step to far IMO

3. surprise attacking in the Soviet Union... My view is that while I was initially willing to give a 30 day warning if the situation at Karachi isn't being modified by what is reasonable but is being governed only by the limits of game mechanics then the situation at the Soviet Union should adhere to the same principles. A 30 day pre-attack activation is reasonable but attacking without warning is as "fair" as what is going on at Karachi ( and conforms fully to the game mechanics). As such if Karachi stays the way it is then I think no warning is required prior to attacking the Soviet Union.

Soviet Union attack no house rule agreed up front you should be able to do what you like although be aware that by now he will have lvl 9 forts everywhere and that Heavy Bombers will have sucked all supply in theatre to where he wants it. Even with surprise SU is a harder target in late 42 than early

4. mining efforts... No limits on same... Trey misread this and spat back that he wasn't going to agree to anything which allowed me to air-mine during his counter-offensives. I have pointed out that I can't air-mine and so all I meant was that there would be no limit on what we would mine or how much we'd mine using submarines and surface ships ( which are subject to interception) while aerial mining is still forbidden ( as it is not subject to interception)

Allied aerial mining is a double edged sword a typical compromise from my games is no more than 1 BG perday on AM. As the allies I struggle to even achieve that as my sips hit to many of my own mines so if he wants to go unrestricted let him it will almost hurt him more than you.

5. A ban on splitting ground units to get rid of disruption/fatigue ( I haven't been doing this and consider it an exploit. Since
I, frankly, don't trust Trey not to do it ( after the carry-on at Karachi) I would like its banning formalised so that I don't rely on "reasonableness" only to find out Trey finds this exploit reasonable as well.

Yup should be banned its a game mechanic exploit

6. Re-assignment of units ( e.g. Trey is having hordes of Chinese troops re-appear in the Soviet Union once they are destroyed by changing their HQ assignment. These Chinese troops then can fight in defence of the Soviet Union. ) I happen to think this is unreasonable. Trey disagrees and sees nothing wrong with it... Once these Chinese troops are desroyed in the Soviet Union I expect them to respawn in Karachi and be used to spearhead the re-conquest of India. Again, an example of a game mechanic being exploited which I felt was outruled by "reasonableness" but which I've found hasn't been.  Since Trey wants to keep this ability I've given way and allowed it to him.

With a horde of Chinese troops ( up to 60 Corps) due to appear in karachi 30 days after they are destroyed in Chungking/Chengtu, all of the queued US North pacific Units also due to arrive AND the normal UK and Indian troops I expect Trey to be able to retake India by the end of 1942.

Hmmmm Chinese in Russia then India an odd division or Corps perhaps a small HQ maybe but 60 Corps isnt just pushing the bounds of reasonableness but is kicking 7 bells out of it. (I still have an issue with the NORPAC thing but thats for you and Trey to agree)

[Nemo121]

AndyMac,
 
Well as regards Corsairs... I agreed to a game with a minimum of house rules but with "reasonableness", newtonian physics etc etc as governors. These house rules are proposed simply because Trey rejects "reasonableness"... although he didn't see fit to tell me this at the beginning of the game at which time we could have avoided the whole issue... So as far as Corsairs go they can fly anywhere they could, reasonably, have flown IMO. I know that pretty much butchers my forces in 1943 etc but "reasonable" cuts both ways . I enjoyed its advantages early on and later on I'll be crippled by it. That's fair IMO.
 
Allied Aerial mining... The reason I won't compromise on this is that early on we agreed that uncounterable actions were clear game exploits. Aerial mining is uninterceptible and, as such, a clear game exploit. Also if I give way on aerial mining then other uncounterable exploitations ( such as the teleportation into Karachi) will get a sheen of respectability I do not think they deserve and I feel Trey will be sure to use to argue for their use.
 
Four-engineds on naval attack. Well, rather than see my opponent quit the game I've given way on this. So my guess is we'll see a lot of B29s cutting Japan off from all resource and oil convoys in 1944, leading to a quick collapse. Anything less would, it seems, have led to my opponent taking his ball and going home so I really had no choice. Not happy about it but when one's opponent says he'll quit unless then one really needs to give way (unless one wants to see the game head own the tubes).
 
 
I should be clear about the 60 Corps thing... I have no proof that Trey has switched all 60 Corps in Chungking/Chengtu etc BUT I know that several Corps have shown up in the Soviet Union and other Divisions in karachi so it seems logical that given his feeling that teleporting units from the North Pacific into Karachi at no PP cost ( by buying out their HQs) is entirely within his rights ( even though he admits it isn't reasonable... one of the parameters we agreed to pre-game.. so I don't know how he squares that circle) it is just pure logic to expect that he has changed the Chinese HQs so that when they are eliminated all of their troops will respawn in Karachi or the Soviet Union with them. Trey views this as being entirely within the rules even though I think it clearly violates a whole host of them.
 
 
I'm quite frustrated since I even offered him a "go over" from April 1st 1941 with Karachi being "safe" from attack and thus guaranteeing all British reinforcements would arrive. He would get to keep the two carriers he lost in combat at the end of April and would keep all UK, Australian etc ships around Karachi at that time, would get all UK and Indian reinforcements and the only condition was that India would become a neutral theatre with no forces present ( except for those shipping out of Karachi). It seemed like a very fair compromise to me since it would have given Trey what he wants ( continued access to UK and Indian troops AND the resoures, fuel and supplies), given me part of what I wanted ( India as a neutral theatre) and avoided all of the hassle about teleportation, untakeable cities etc which developed after Karachi was besieged on 19th April. He returned that mail telling me he hadn't even bothered to read it.
 
Part of the reason I've been so frustrated in my postings here is that behind the scenes I've been getting mails like that. It really isn't conducive to compromise (or a good mood) to be told that someone hasn't even bothered reading your good faith proposals to help get out of the morass which has developed.

[mogami]

Hi, since you can only mine ports via air how about allowing it if allied player first closes the airfield 9and all airfields in range of flying LRCAP) or dirves all Japanese fighters out of range. It seems to me to be an exploit to not have the means of intercepting but forbidding it on the grounds you can't intercept.

[1EyedJacks]

Hi Nemo121,

Why don't you both go for a flat-out anything goes game then? It seems like that's what Trey want's (although I admit I have not read his AAR or e-mailed him).

I mean, if it was truely anything goes, what would you do?

4 me, if it's no fun to play and all you are doing is argueing then I'd say scew it and quit. If it's about really trying to see how far you can go with Japan then pull out ALL of the stops...

I admit I've enjoyed your exploits, and I for one could care less about the rules used in this game or anything else as long as I'm a happy camper and my opponent (playmate) is a happy camper too. Bottom line from my point of view, I can only play the game as long as my opponent keeps sending back turns. [:D][:D][:D]

Life is too short to cop a waa over a PBEM game. I hope you both agree to continue the game - I really have enjoyed the chance of reading about your strategies, the methods of deployment, and the challenge of supply and demand during a major outbreak. I've actually learned a lot from this AAR so thanks much for sharing.[:)]

[Nemo121]

Well Mogami, under the doctrine of "reasonableness" I had said in this thread that when air-mining became available I'd tell Trey that he was only banned from aerial-mining my bases IF there was a little airfield there ( in other words, he couldn't air-mine in the presence of planes)... Ideally I'd have liked to limit the restriction to only those bases with fighters but the game mechanics only let him see if something is there, not what type of plane it is.
 
I felt this was a reasonable allowance. However since Trey himself now tells me he rejects the doctrine of reasonableness as a limiter ( but forgot to mention that when I gave up Ledo when I thought that the Shock Attack+Pursue doctrine was "unreasonable") and only wants to go by the letter of the rules I really don't see why I should continue applying it when I'm the only one doing so.
 
However I do agree that in general if the Japanese have no fighters at a base then aerial mining should be allowed. I don't think that's workable in the poisoned atmosphere of this game anymore though. Ideally of course the bug should be fixed. That's the real fix we all need.

[Nemo121]

1Eyedjack,
 
Unfortunately I think the problem is that we both arrived at this point with very different ideas of the rules we were playing under. Trey wanted something limited only by game mechanics whereas I thought we were limiting some of the more "unreasonable" game mechanics in favour of what was "probable/possible"... I see now that I DID make a major mistake in not clarifying this grey area of "reasonableness" and "probable vs possible" sufficiently. So a lot of this rancour was arrived at through ignorance of the game ( which I certainly had at the beginning of this game) and two people honestly proceeding under very different mindsets and only discussing these differences after too much time had passed for them to be resolved easily.
 
 
I think if it all falls apart I might propose a return to 1st April ( while India was still contested) with some clear ground rules which members of the forum think are fair and "reasonable" and see if anyone else is interested in picking up from Trey. If not then so be it. If they are then the game can continue with less grey areas and less potential for disagreement in future. I'd love to keep playing as I really had my heart set on commanding Japan in 44, 45 and, hopefully, 46.
 
 
Suffice it to say though that I am now TOTALLY won over to the "extensive house rule" club. Even if one wants to give great latitude to both sides I think it is important to make the boundaries as black and white as possible. Well it is my 2nd game so one way or the other I've definitely learned a LOT so apologies for the vehemence with which I disagreed with those who criticised the complete lack of house rules. It turns out you experience meant you were right and the current situation is the end-result of my inexperience and not clarifying what was and wasn't reasonable (to both players) prior to beginning the game.
 
 My initial strategy was also sub-optimal and I believe I know now how to optimise it further.

[Andy Mac]

Nemo nice to see it going on we all had to learn the hard way on houserules !!!! I for one am enjoying the AAR and a little bit of tension/dispute never hurt anyone.
 
We all have these little issues look at the stacking limit or aerial mining debate I just had in my mid 44 game with PZB after 900 turns or the picket lines or chinese conquest discussion with Pauk in every game I have going I have had to have discussion with opponents about the ongoing evolution of house rules its a part of playing the game.
 
My personal list of Allied limitation houserules for a normal game grows all the time and changes as I learn more about the game but mostly I find its about having reasonable open discussions with your opponent and if you disagree recognise it and move on - which appears to be what you are doing so good luck for the rest of the game.
 
Andy

[aztez]

It is sad if this game ends.
 
I think you have played an excellent game. In my opinion Karachi is just a sideshow in this huge campaign. Personally I think you might even be able to conquer Karachi in due time but I guess you would need to send some more reinforcements to the area.
 
Teleporting is a two way street. Let just say that you do capture Karachi than he will be out of North Pac reinforements since you annihilated the HQ in question.
 
Btw, if I did read correctly you have an allied game going on too??? Any chance we would see an AAR on that one too? [:)]

[Nemo121]

Well, unfortunately, my opponent no longer wishes to continue as we have very incompatible ideas of what we agreed on back at the beginning of the game and fighting over interpretations isn't as fun as fighting over the Pacific. I've asked for and received his password ( and he mine) so that I could check if Karachi could be taken from late-June ( answer... Not with teleporting in US units it cannot. Without them it can. ) I would, however, like to have the game continue and intend to post a thread in the opponent's wanted forum.

Since I've had a bit of a road to damascus conversion as far as house rules go I'd like to ask the advice of people here for comments re: the fairness of the house rules I think should apply if the game continues:


Basically my thinking for the game as it goes on is that the situation we find ourselves in at the end of June 1942 is almost insoluble without one or other player taking a huge hit in terms of either losing Karachi and US reinforcements are letting Karachi stand even though I feel the mechanism for letting it stand breaches the house rules I thought we agreed. SO I intend to go back to the earliest save game I have which seems to be 1st April 1942. At that point in time India HAD been invaded and much had fallen but Karachi was not beseiged ( two tank regiments had reached it but that's hardly a siege) and a large portion of the Royal navy which was later sunk was still seaworthy. In addition the RAF hadn't been completely gutted. In addition the US CV battle around French Frigate Shoals hadn't happened and so the US gets two carriers back. In return, as the Japanese player, if the house rules below are agreed to, I get the gift of time.

So, given the above I'd appreciate input on the proposed house rules below. I'm going to go into as much detail as possible since I don't want to leave any grey areas ( such as those which wrecked the last game) if I can, at all, avoid them.:

1. Karachi is inviolable. It cannot be attacked by Japanese naval, ground or air forces once cut off from other Indian cities by road or rail. In return, once Karachi is cut off by road or rail from other Indian cities it will be assumed to have fallen and Karachi on-map will be assumed to represent Aden ( to which all units in karachi will be assumed to have been succesfully evacuated). British, West African, RAF and Royal navy units which appear in Karachi will be free to move to Australia free from interception so long as they are north of Line 68 ( level with Bali). In addition all fuel, resources, oil and supply which appears in Karachi will be free to move to Australia free from interception so long as the ships carrying them are north of line 68. This should go a long way to modelling the movement of British and African troops and supplies to Australia to help it build up its offensive potential.

In return India will be declared independent an neutral and any Indian forces currently outside of Karachi will make their way to Karachi ( using non-rail-movement as much as possible so as not to impede the Japanese withdrawal) and remain there for the rest of the war( troops at Colombo will be given free passage, by ship, to evacuate to Karachi or Australia. Colombo will then be taken by ground assault and the Japanese troops which do this withdrawn. No Indian naval, air or ground troops which arrive at Karachi can be transferred anywhere else. With Indian declared independent these are assumed to represent the Indian national Army. With India declared independent it will remain inviolable for the rest of the war free from invasion by either side. The only exception to this will be the basing of such troops and bombers as required FOR A SHORT TIME to draw supply to bases for the repair of their HI, oil or resources. Once the item is repaired these troops and planes will be expected to move on.


The effect of this will be to close off the Indian theatre of operations for the rest of the game whilst still allowing the Allied player access to the British Empire's troops, planes, ships and supplies ( minus the Indian troops who will now be creating the Indian National Army)... I think it is a fair compromise.


2. With Karachi representing Aden and being off-limits to Japanese attack ( although Glen-equipped subs etc can be used to keep an eye on when convoys leave etc) the teleporting of troops from CONUSA to Karachi/Aden will be allowed. However, if this is done the PP cost for each unit must be paid individually. No paying for the HQ and getting everything else for free.


3. I don't know if this is possible or if it isn't but no teleportation into Australia or NZ should occur. They are well within the theatre of operations.

( In my game as Allies I've made it much simpler and simply said that if I want troops at Karachi I'll ship them there from the US myself. No teleportation at all is allowed but I don't want to hamstring an Allied player who is trying to use the teleportation to simulate movement into non-besieged bases.)


4. Soviet Union. The intention to take the Soviet Union will be signalled by Japanese forces invading Mongolia and capturing all 5 bases there. The Soviet player will not intervene by entering Mongolia or bombing the forces invading it. On the date that Japanese forces cross the border the Japanese player will inform the Soviet player of the date on which he intends to commence his invasion of the Soviet Union. This date should be between 14 to 28 days distant. It can be longer but should not be shorter. From the date named as the invasion date a state of war between the Soviet Union and Japan is deemed to exist and forces in the Soviet Union ( including US and British forces) can attack Japanese forces and holdings even if no Japanese soldier has crossed into the Soviet Union proper.
E.g. If the Japanese player were to invade Mongolia on 1st February 1943 then he could name 1st March 1943 as the date on which a state of war will exist. All war activities can begin in they MORNING phase of 1st March ( e.g. no surprise air bombin on the night of 28th February.)

The Soviet player is free to use this 2 weeks to 4 weeks ( or more) to redeploy any Allied forces he wishes ( including American and british four-engined bomber units) to the Soviet Union preparatory to the commencement of hostilities.


5. Once their home country is deemed to have fallen ( either by the taking of all of its bases or in the case of India the cutting off of Karachi from all other Indian bases) any units hailing from that country will have their replacements turned off.
E.g. If all of the Soviet Union is taken then all Soviet forces on-map will have their replacements turned to OFF even if they are in San Francisco etc. Same goes for Chinese, Australian, US, UK, NZ troops.)


6. No aerial mining of hexes containing an airfield symbol. (Since aerial mining is uninterceptible.) No other restrictions on aerial mining.


7. No restrictions on aircraft basing from carriers. If the programme allows it to fly from a carrier then it can fly from a carrier. E.g The Allies can put Corsairs on carriers, the Japanese their naval fighters other than Zeros/Zekes.


8. No splitting of LCUs to get rid of disruption/fatigue.


9. No use of B29s for naval attack. They were used strategically and the Allies have enough other level bombers for the mission. Ideally I think that one can argue for a 15,000 foot limit on four-engined naval attacks but I'm negotiable on this.


10. Allied PT boats should be in TFs no smaller than 6 ( of course exception is made if losses are incurred) and must be created at a Level 8 or larger base. This is negotiable if someone feels very strongly about this. Same goes for Japanes barges as I think they operate somewhat similarly.


11. No restriction on paratroop usage.


12. No restriction on air transport usage.


13. No restriction on unit stacking.


14. No restriction on ASW TF size.

15. No Shock Attack + Pursue in wooded or mountainous terrain unless either paved roads or rails are present.


So, comments welcome. I think those are reasonable and act to curb only the most excessive things I've seen. Ones like the PT boat one are highly negotiable but the Indian one isn't as I think that is what got us into this whole situation in the first place and I don't want to go through that whole kerfuffle again.

P.s. Obviously if there is something here I'm missing which I should apply to the Japanese then please pipe up. I want rules which limit things to the "possible" but obviously most of my experience of excessive capability etc is in terms of being on the receiving end of something Allied. So if there's something Japanese which shoul be limited please pipe up. I'd be more than willing to include it if it is reasonable.

[itsjustme]

Although I certainly wish you well in finding someone to play, I think the statement that I no longer wish to continue is misleading at best.  Instead of playing you have been sending me emails with new and different rules than the lunacy game we agreed to.  I didn't want to change the rules in midstream.  I simply didn't wish to continue a game in which you could not be happy because I was unwilling to modify the rules midstream.
 
Again, while I hope you have a great game, please don't insinuate that I wasn't willing to continue, when the truth is that I was perfectly willing to continue under the rules we set forth initially.

[Andy Mac]

I do think the India HR isnt going to work.

2 reasons

1. the turning off of replacements for Indian troops is a little harsh for 2 reasons.

a. Most Indian troops at this stage are not from the Hindu majority but are Ghurkas, Sikhs or the other warlike elements of Indian society as such they were very loyal and will have plenty of replacements available from the 5 - 6 Indina Divs not based in India at this time

b. Also at this stage Bdes still typically had one Br Bn per 2 Indian ones.

2. Also I know you want to shut down the Indian theatre but India should still be vulnerable IMO to a seaborne invasion originating from Australia although no forces air/sea or naval should be able to participate from Karachi.

And if successfull any "restricted" Indian troops are reactivated.

Otherwise the IJA will just strip India of Japanese forces I can tell you from personal experience that the extra forces the Japanese can strip out of India if they leave it ungarrisoned will make most allied players wary of taking on the game as that level of force commitment behind lvl 9 forts makes everywhere else impossible to take Marianas, North NG and PI are damn near impossible. In my game with PZB he has left I think c 10 Divs in India the game is unplayable otherwise. (less now that  have idnetified 2 of those Divs in the Marianas).

Very few Allied players will volounteer for this game if they know you have totally eliminated India and the need to garrison it. Also what happens about Burma ?

I really don't think the India HR you are proposing will work.

Personally a ceasefire for 12  - 18 months in place with no US troops transferred by PP for 15 - 21 months is probably a more sensible option which is what your previous opponent offered during your negotiations i think.

Good Luck finding someone

[Nemo121]

itsjustme,

Well, again, our views differ. Yesterday you sent me the following...

  I think that the best thing to do is agree to disagree and wish you well in your new game.  I wanted and we agreed to a lunacy game. The below rules modify that significantly after you have won massive victories across the map using lunacy rules and I did not lodge a single objection to a single action you initiated.

 
I've said all along that my issue was that you had a view that if something wasn't explicitly forbidden then it was allowed whereas I was of the opinion that we would continue to negotiate rules as the need for them became evident as we played and ran into grey areas ( in my first post to this thread I make this belief clear). I sent you an email yesterday stating that before we continued we should negotiate house rules for issues I could see arising ( and we DID have some house rules prior to commencing the game... just not very many... and DID have precedent for negotiating others during play ( e,g the shock attack rule and me gifting you my Ledo beach-head.). You replied with the above quote, ending our game.
 
I initially replied to you asking you to continue and giving way on most of the proposed house rules... A couple of hours later, after thinking about it I sent you a 2nd email stating...

I've thought about it. If neither you nor I are having fun anymore then probably no point continuing...

and thus the game ended.
 
 

If you wish to discuss this further I am still contactable by email. I amn't, however, trying to impugn you or anything like that. You withdrew from our game by stating that we should agree to disagree and wishing me well in my new game and I said here no more than that you had withdrawn from our game. I didn't give more details simply because I didn't think either of us needed to get dragged into precisely who disagreed over what with whom and when. You arrived at your position honestly, I arrived at mine honestly. We both tried to do our best but as time has gone by I have realised that the lack of house rules at the beginning of the game meant that I was under the impression we were playing by a very different spirit than the one you were playing by ( and I amn't saying one spirit is better or anything than the other. They are just different.). Those two spirits are pretty incompatible and I don't want to play a game under the spirit you were playing under and you don't want to play a game under the spirit I was playing under. However, you are the person who withdrew from the game and so I think it was reasonable for me to say that as explanation for my last post.
 
Honestly though, is it really important enough to have a public fight over? Really it isn't IMO. If you want to clarify this privately then you know how to reach me.

[Nemo121]

AndyMac,

Thanks for that input. I really appreciate it since:
a) we DEFINITELY haven't alway seen eye to eye BUT
b) at a point in time when many people simply disagreed with everything I said ( and I felt they disagreed simply because I said it ) you were one of the very few who, while disagreeing with most of what I said, agreed with some things. Now, it isn't at all important to me that you agreed with some BUT it is important that that speaks of judging things more objectively than I think some others did.

here's my take on your points:
1. India shouldn't be inviolable for the rest of the war but the idea of Karachi representing Aden is reasonable.

2. If India had been taken by Japan how would they have found Sikhs etc to replace losses in the Indian divisions not in India? I'm not trying to be difficult it just seems to me that in that day of relative ethnic homogeneity they wouldn't have been able to find 50,000 Sikhs etc of the right gender and age living outside of India.

3. Indian Bdes containing British troops. I checked in-game and none of the Indian units in-game have British troops as part of their TO&E so I think that avoids that problem.

4. Indian vulnerability to seaborne invasion... Ok, that's reasonable AND counterable so completely within the spirit of the rules I wish to apply. So long as NO units from Karachi can participate I think that is reasonable... It would have to be handled somewhat carefully as I'd be afraid that an Allied player invading Ceylon in the face of Betty and Nell attacks could find convoys from Karachi also being attacked by mistake BUT I'm sure that could be worked around by telling him not to route any convoys through the area and requiring the Allied player to inform me of an invasion when his forces come within 24 hexes ( Emily range) of an Indian base with an AF ( I would, obviously, have to promise to base Emilys at each of these Indian bases to keep things honest. The reason for this is that to allow Allied convoys from Karachi to pass Ceylon unmolested I'd have to turn down the range of my Betty an Nell naval attack missions but that would obviously unfairly hinder me if I was facing an invasion so some sort of "fair warning" would have to be organised. Obviously I wouldn't be allowed to transfer additional troops or planes or ships until such time as I got a confirmed sighting of an enemy invasion convoy.



So, maybe the following would work:
1. Karachi is inviolable. Free shipment of forces to Australia via a map-edge "safe lane" within 4 or 5 hexes of the map edge.

2. India CAN be invaded by forces from Australia and once Karachi is liberated Allied ground, land and sea forces at Karachi can begin moving out of Karachi 30 days after its liberation.

3. Once a seaborne invasion is within 24 hexes of a Japanese-held Indian base with air units present the Allied player must inform the Japanese player so that naval search missions can be ordered.

4. The Japanese player can only begin moving troops, planes and ships into the Indian theatre of operations once Allied shipping is sighted by his naval search missions. Obviously forces already in the Indian theatre of operations ( everything north of Akyab/Jorhat border) can be repositioned as required.

5. Indian forces cannot be transported to Australia BUT they can accumulate at Karachi and 30 days after Karachi is liberated they can move out of Karachi and participate in all Allied operations.


I AM seriously interested in getting input on a reasonable workaround here. I am well aware that I am seeing things from the Japanese perspective as my Allied game is only a few ays old an so I'm happy to get input from the Allied point of view so as to achieve proper balance here. If no-one else can sign onto them then so be it and this game will die. That outcome is acceptable to me albeit not preferable.


P.s. My opponent, IIRC, didn't offer the no transfer of US forces thing IIRC and that was one of the reasons I turned it down.

[itsjustme]

I am not one to take things out of context, so given that you want to start posting portions of emails, lets have a look at the whole sequence then.
 

[font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Itsjustme
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:51 AM
To: Nemo[/font]
[font=tahoma]Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font=arial]Not cocky, that’s for sure.  On my heels everywhere, definitely.  I agree that you will reduce my engineers, but with 4 engineering units due in Karachi this week alone, along with a number of new combat units, can you reduce Karachi in the next 40 days before a flood of engineering and combat units show up?  Its entirely possible that you can, but it’ll be interesting to watch.[/font][/align]
[font=arial] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]

---

[/size][/font][/align]
[font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:20 AM
To: Itsjustme[/font]
[font=tahoma]Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font][/align][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]

[font="times new roman"]Ants they may be but with repeated bombardments I WILL reach a tipping point where sufficient engineers are disabled that you cannot repair the disabled squads fully before the next bombardment. At that point repeated bombardments will draw down your engineers, support numbers at a logarithmic rate. In any case I'm just about to complicate your tactical situation at Karachi threefold so don't be getting too cocky just yet [/font][/align][/align]

[font="times new roman"]
As to whether or not I am able to continue with other operations while my battleline is occupied with Karachi. Well during the early phase of the war I believe you will remember that while my army took care of the Phillipines almost by itself, my air force took care of Singapore, my battleline with only a few regiments took care of the DEI and the KB took care of the Pacific. So, yes, I'm eminently able to mount operations while my army bombers and southern area army are tied up in India. In fact it would fit in with the way I've done things up till now in the game to have KB mount operations independent of the army air force and battleline... all it needs is support from my Bettys and Nells and they've recently been withdrawn from India. I have 16 carriers( only two were committed to that little open-ocean intercept mission so 14 are still available to me for offensive operations elsewhere), you have, at most, 6. My escorts have finished upgrading and repairing the resultant system damage, my navy pilots have finished their training and my forward fuel depots close to my next targets are almost up to requirements so, yes, I believe that wherever I want to go I will go and go with some degree of success. Not in the next few days mind you but soon enough.[/font][/align][/align]

[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align][/align]

[font="times new roman"]Don't forget that two of my independent regiments are more than equal to one of my divisions and I had 8 of them at game's start plus whatever I've freed up from China since. That's a good punch. Not enough to take on Pearl Harbour but more than enough for preparatory objectives etc.

Trey  wrote: [/font][/align][/align][blockquote]


[font=arial]Yep, I got it.  What’s interesting is my support guys in Karachi are like ants.  You can’t kill them all and I keep getting lots of replacement units.  Hope you are settling in for a long siege.  In the meantime, can you launch another major operation with the IJN busy trying to reduce Karachi and the IJA laying siege to Karachi and Chunking?[/font][/align][/align][/blockquote]
 [font=tahoma]
[font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 8:41 PM
To: Itsjustme
Subject: Re: Teleporting units[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]Trey,[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]No we never made any such agreement at all and everything you have done is absolutely fine with respect to our agreement. [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I'm just a bit frustrated at the fact that an airtight air and sea cordon can't stop reinforcements getting into Karachi and there's no way to do anything about the supply either. [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]My beef is with the game dynamics and not anything we agreed to etc. I've never had any issue with you sticking to anything we've agreed to... I think this is just something I might make a house rule for in my next game but wasn't aware of for this one.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I'm going to try one more conventional assault. if that has some success then I'll ay the price in blood. If it proves impossible then I may raise the issue with you so long as we can arrange a suitable trade-off... Something like allowing you to evacuate Karachi and free passage for all units from Karachi to USA or Australia  for the rest of the game to simulate it falling but rerouting of UK etc reinforcements.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]But first we'll see how the next assault goes...[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]

Trey Branham <tbranham@seglaw.com> wrote:[/font][/align][blockquote]

[font=arial]I was just surfing the matrix boards and came across your posts in the thread on Nakajima.  In it I seem to read that we agreed not to teleport units into Karachi.  I candidly don’t recall and want to make sure that I am not breaching our deal as I am moving units in from the west coast.  If I misunderstood let me know and we’ll work something out where I move some units out of Karachi to compensate.  Thanks.[/font][/align][/blockquote][/font]
[font=tahoma][/font] 
[font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] NEMO
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 4:28 AM
To: Itsjustme
Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]Well you see what I'm worried about is that 2 months before October 43 you will just switch every ground unit in the CONUSA to the British HQ in India and then hit me with a, frankly, massive ground assault. Add into that the fact that you can pre-position shipping in Australia in preparation for this ground assault and I can foresee India becoming an absolute disaster for Japanese forces and falling well before the middle of 1944 in the presence of strong amphibious forces.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]After all if you don't see anything wrong with teleporting units in while Karachi is under siege now then I can't imagine that you would be averse to the above strategy which relies on teleporting when Karachi isn't under siege. And I wouldn't have any problem with the above to be fair... It is the teleporting in while under siege that I have such issues with.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]Essentially I think that we have diametrically opposed views re: these appearances of fully formed combat formations out of thin air with no chance of intercepting them and it isn't really possible to reconcile such different views...[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]Strangely enough I got so discouraged over this issue I've decided to start a game as the US so I will have sufficient assets and supplies etc so that I don't have to do a knife-edge plan and therefore these sorts of issues won't hurt my plans as much . Just got the first turn. May AAR it.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I think that your proposal of October 43 bears thinking of. I may quibble and ask for a January 44 time and I think under the circumstances I'll have 1 more go to see if I can bring fort levels down but I think that despite everything else this will be the rock on which we found a solution.

Trey > wrote:[/font][/align][blockquote]

[font=arial]I really want to work out a fair compromise.   I candidly think that my proposal of no offensive operations out of Karachi until late 43 is fair, but I am willing to negotiate the date.  The fact that I can’t get RN ships out of Karachi renders them ineffective and my forces are bottled up.  Additionally, you don’t need a ton of forces to keep me bottled up in Karachi for some time after I am allowed to commence operations.  I don’t want your enjoyment of the game to be diminished, but while I was prepared to lose Karachi if you could take it, I am not ready to simply let it become ineffective in perpetuity.[/font][/align]
[font=arial] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]

---

[/size][/font][/align]
[font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:39 PM
To: Itsjust me[/font]
[font=tahoma]Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font][/align][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]

[font=arial]I hear you, but again, teleportation was understood at the beginning of the game.[/font][/align][/align]

[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align][/align]

[font=arial]*** Well I didn't at all understand this aspect of it. Since teleportation clearly breaks the Newtonian physics aspect of the initial limits set I woul have viewed it as being out of bounds but since I didn't realise teleportation would strike in this way I wasn't explicit about it. I should have been. Now you've invested a lot in a strategy which will be badly damaged if we halt the current operations and I've invested a lot in a strategy which is being badly hurt by the game mechanics. Whatever we do it seems one of us loses big.[/font][/align][/align]

[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align][/align]

[font=arial]*** Still we're both big enough to agree to disagree and move on .[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 

[font="times new roman"]

---

[/size][/font][/align][font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo[/font]
[font=tahoma]Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 4:27 PM
To: Itsjustme [/font]
[font=tahoma]Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font][/align][font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]Summary:[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I've decided to summarise the discussion we've had in order to clarify where we are at and why... I didn't write anything in the last few mails because:[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]a)[font="times new roman"]      [/font][/font]I was extremely annoyed over your interpretation of our initial rules ( needless to say that interpretation differs massively from mine). Not annoyed with you or in any way feeling that you were "cheating" or anything like that... I just didn't see how what you suggested logically fit with what we agreed. As you explained your position I can see how you arrived, honestly, at your position. I don't agree but I see how you arrived ther.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font=arial]I understand your annoyance, but we did agree on these rules and although I understand that you disagree with my interpretation, as you say, I did arrive at them honestly.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]b) If I had written something it would merely have consisted of me re-iterating my position and doing so in a manner I might regret later.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]c) while we have VERY different positions as regards this issue I recognise that your position has been arrived at honestly and is not capricious or in any other way dishonest... I just think your interpretation of what we agreed upon differs vastly from what I had thought we were agreeing to. This is where my lack of experience with the game bites me.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font=arial]I candidly always believed that the teleportation of units was permissible, even once the city was besieged.  If I had thought (or we had agreed) that once a city was besieged that no units were then permissible to be transferred in, I would have begun “teleporting” from the moment I thought Karachi was at risk instead of waiting until much later (as I did).  Additionally, it makes perfect sense to expect that units would be teleporting in even after the city was besieged as it takes 60 days for them to be “rerouted” which makes it entirely possible that I would be sending units weeks, if not months before the siege even begins that would not arrive until after the siege begins.  [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]1. First move teleportation vs into-Karachi teleportation.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I would hold that the first turn movement bonus merely represents Japanese ships leaving Japanese ports early and moving into position. Also, in 1941 the Dutch actually requested the US and British to declare war on the Japanese when Japanese troop convoys passed a previously agreed longtitude on December 4th... The British and Americans refused so there is historical precedent for the Allies allowing Japanese transports into close proximity of their bases prior to 7th December. It also conforms to newtonian physics so long as one assumes the convoys set sail several days/weeks previously. In addition the Japanese landings on 7th December 41 are interceptable and opposable.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]The teleportation of American & Australian and Chinese units into Karachi ( I see at least 1 Chinese Division and a US RCT) is, however, not interceptable or opposable as they appear within the city hex with no chance for my forces to intercept them. If you were shipping them in from the US via Australia on ship then I'd be congratulating you on your success and wishing you the best since your good play would be being rewarded. [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]
This teleportation also does not conform to Newtonian physics insofar as they appear from nowhere in the middle of a contested hex. As such I feel it definitely falls down on the grounds of not conforming to Newtonian Physics ( one of the two measures by which queried game exploits were to be judged) and quite possibly on the grounds of the sudden appearance constituting an uninterceptable move ( akin to the ban on US air-dropped mining missions since they cannot be intercepted by CAP).  [/font][font=wingdings]ß[/font]Of course this is also similar to my inability to intercept your air transports with CAP.[/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]So I feel my objections arise from and are consistent with the two measures by which I stated, initially, maximisation of resources vs gamey exploitation was to be judged. I do, however, accept that the situation of teleporting personnel from CONUSA into Karachi was never explicitly addressed and, as such, it was never formally forbidden ( although, obviously, transfer by ships would be just fine). That was a mistake brought about by my lack of experience with the game. It simply never occurred to me that one would consider teleporting troops in this manner.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]So I do allow that given the failure to be explicit about this issue ( since I wasn't aware of it) you arrived at very different conclusions as to its reasonableness and did so in good faith since your originating point is obviously vastly different than mine.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font=arial]We will just have to agree to disagree about this.  There is no real possibility that Noumea and PM could have been taken with the speed and surprise executed by you.  Those task forces would not have gone unnoticed and unchallenged.  When combined with the first turn surprise on, it simply isn’t remotely realistic to believe that your gains during the first week would have been realized during that time frame, if ever.  I admit that I am not a physicist, but getting past what would have been significant numbers of patrolling aircraft and surface forces to achieve surprise on a full pacific scale doesn’t seem to me to physically possible.  Nevertheless, that’s what we agreed to and I am happy with the course of the game up till now.   The game’s scope was never intended to show the entire globe (obviously) and there has to be some compromise to permit continued UK forces to flow into the theater.  Although I too would have preferred that in the event Karachi fell, that they UK forces simply move to another base to begin appearing.  Candidly, I’d rather have had them coming to Oz anyway.  But that’s not the way the game was designed and we both knew it on beginning the game.  Again, while I understand your frustration, I don’t think that the designers’ compromise of having had someplace where troops arrive which reflects an ongoing commitment to the theater is inappropriate.  It is also worth noting that if the map edge around Karachi were not present, you could not have gained the air superiority that you did (there were many other airfields that would have supported Karachi IRL, so to the extend my teleportation is working against you, the lack of a fuller map is working against me.  Again, I am fine with this result as it is the rules we agreed upon.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]2. Soviet Basing.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]Again. Never explicitly outruled but it just seemed obvious to me. We have agreed to differ and with a couple of common sense rules have managed to reach a workable compromise about this.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font=arial]Your displeasure with this baffles me.  The planes that are/were based there have the range to fly there and did so.  The political considerations are irrelevant.  As you said, we only had two rules and neither were violated by this.  Moreover, to the extent that the realisticness of this is part of the equation my viewpoint on the Russian position changing as the imminence of India’s fall becomes clear is perfectly reasonable (no planes were based or travel through the USSR until after the invasion of India).  Especially given the knowledge that with their flank secured from the British that Tojo and crew would have certainly turned their eyes to the USSR.  This is borne out by the very fact that I get significant signals intelligence each turn that a number of your units are prepping for a USSR invasion.  Thus, the notion that Stalin would permit the landing and taking off of US planes to get to the front lines is perfectly reasonable.   The issue of Planes not attacking from the USSR was never an issue.  When they arrive on soviet soil, the only option are training and stand down.  This is the way it stays until you attack.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]3. British force availability after Karachi falls.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I had always assumed ( and we have even discussed) that British forces would be available after Karachi had fallen. In some of our very early emails we had discussed the diversion of British troops to CONUSA or Australia if Karachi fell. I think from some of what you have said recently you have forgotten this.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I never wished to remove British productive capacity from the war. I wanted to remove a geographical front from the war. I am quite at peace with the idea that if the British had been driven out of India they would have remained in the war and diverted their men and material to either Australia or the US. Since British troops in CONUSA would have to be shipped out to likely theatres of conflict I would have preferred that they divert to CONUSA than to Australia as I had designs on Australia and didn't want to see British reinforcements teleport in in unbeatable numbers.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I just wanted to clear that up as I don't think it would have been very fair of me to expect British reinforcements to simply stop if Karachi fell. If that would have required me taking Karachi and then allowing you to take it back with an engineer Bn so you could receive troops and squadrons and then shipping them to Australia via ship then so be it.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]This wouldn’t work.  Unless and until you allow me to reoccupy Karachi, I wouldn’t get the troops in and the point of your taking Karachi is to gain the resources.  This, plus the resources required for me to move them from Karachi penalizes me to a very large extent.  I always expected that I would loose the UK forces if Karachi fell.  I don’t like it, I don’t think its fair, but its what happens when/if Karachi falls.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]Anyways, our opinions about the Star Trekking in of US ground combat formations obviously differ wildly. I think that anything short of bringing them in by ship ( which, I grant, would probably take a bit more than the 60 days) isn't actually in keeping with the newtonian physics caveat we agreed upon. You disagree.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I don’t disagree, I simply think that they aren’t “teleporting in” rather they are just arriving in theater.  There isn’t anyplace else for them to come.  What is the difference between having an airfield 1 hex away from Karachi and being engaged in Karachi.    Additionally, as you know, I have shipped a ton of forces into Karachi, which arrived just fine and unopposed.  Moreover, there must be some compromise as it was not possible to knock Britain completely out of the war IRL.  Here, it actually IS possible to knock Britain out of the war.  Given the reward, Karachi should be nearly impossible to take.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I haven't wanted to talk before this earlier tonight as I wouldn't have been able to put this down in the way I wanted and that would have done us no good since, after all, you haven't played in an unfair way or, in any way, been a dishonourable opponent. You've just arrived at a decision I can't countenance but done so in what you feel to be an entirely reasonable manner.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I’m fine with the way you’ve handled it.  If you had picked up your toys and gone home, I would not have been fine.  But I never expected that to happen and we’re all fine.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I disagree with your reasoning. I would not have arrived at that same decision and in the game I'm starting as Allies I have explicitly informed my Japanese opponent that any US troops going to India etc will be shipped there. They won't be teleporting as I consider that to be beyond the pale. I'm not saying that to try to pressurise you, I'm just trying to make it clear that I'm not trying to be a bad sport and hobble the Allies. I really do disagree with that game dynamic and so won't use it even when it would benefit me to do so.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]My guess is that you won’t need to teleport units.  You are, by far, the best Japanese player on the board.  And this in your first game.  Whoever your opponent is won’t open with nearly as aggressive moves as you did and you will have plenty of time to reinforce wherever you need.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]In any case I felt that I should put it all down as clearly as I could since I know I was pissed off earlier and so probably didn't do a great job of explaining myself.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]With that all said I also want to say that I am happy to consider the matter closed. We will fight for Karachi. You will probably win as I'm sure several divisions of GIs are sitting around in Alaska just waiting to dematerialise and re-assemble in karachi but I'll give it a full go and if you lose then I don't think it is unreasonable of me to say I intend to continue holding Karachi and blocking British reinforcements. So, I officially turn down your offer of a ceasefire in place. I know it has taken a few turns to reply but I needed to be sure this is what I wanted to do since, logically, I really should take your offer. On the other hand there are some times when it is better to listen to one's blood and do what it calls on you to do .[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Actually, there are relatively few CONUS combat units heading to Karachi at the moment (although there are a number of UK/Indian combat forces scheduled to arrive in the coming days/weeks).  Most of the CONUS forces currently scheduled to arrive are support units (with the first division some 100 plus days out).[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]So, thanks for the offer of a ceasfire till October 43 but I'm afraid I must decline it. I hope you can excuse the fact that I left you in "limbo" for about a day while I figured out whether I'd listen to my head or my heart... neither of us held back in that day though so I'm sure neither of us scrapped major strategic plans.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Ok, I’ll consider the offer rejected and we will fight to the death.    Although I understand you are not happy about my conclusions, I will say again that you have created an enormous perimeter and one I am not sure can be breached to the point of attacking the home islands by 1946.  The point, I think, was always to guarantee colossal battles in late 44 and through 45.  If so, this is assured.  This said, I am not angry, upset, or otherwise emotional about the effects of the rules we agreed upon, nor with your interpretation.  I continue (and hope to continue) to enjoy the game and your witty repartee for some time to come as the game progresses.    As I said before, its just a big sandbox to play in.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]If you agree I would intend to post this to my thread to make my reasoning clear. if you think there's something prejudicial or indiscreet in this then, obviously, I would agree not to post it and just post the decision to go full-tilt for Karachi.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Again, if you want to post, please do so with my comments included.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] [font=arial]
[font=arial]Kelly,[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I glanced briefly at the lengthy response below, but haven’t really read it.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I don’t want to fight with you about this.  You’ve exploited the system.  You’ve done exceedingly well with it and I am not complaining.  If you want to close off a front (something that without taking the UK you would never have been able to do, talk about a violation of Newtonian Physics) then you are going to have to take Karachi.    This is doable and has, in fact, been done in other games (yes, even with the teleporting of other troops into Karachi).  That you passed up other things is not my fault.  You, not me, proposed the house rule about the shock and pursue, I would have been fine with it, because I agreed to it.  [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I am fine if you want to back up the clock, but I want to think about exactly where you back the clock up too.  I mounted a forward defense of India in order to delay your siege of Karachi long enough for enough units to show up. (and I purposely delayed starting a teleportation of troops because of this).  I am going to move lots of CONUS troops in before you lay siege to Karachi if we go back, so really, what’s the difference? If we are going to turn the clock back then it has to go far enough back to allow me to revisit the manner in which I expect to defend.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Candidly, I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong and I am getting irritated at being told that my interpretation is wrong. I know we disagree, but I am not the only one who views this a fine use of our rules. As I’ve said before, I knew that UK troops would be foreclosed from the game in the event of Karachi’s loss.  Not realistic, but a term I accepted.  You specifically agreed to the teleportation of units around the map.  I merely played by the rules we set out.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]If you can’t continue to enjoy our game, I’d rather not play.  I won’t begrudge you a bit if you decide our game isn’t fun anymore.  I am having a ball getting my ass kicked, but I’ve bent as far as I am going to on the issue.  I’ve offered you a compromise, which you rejected.  If you want to revisit that, fine.  If you want to back our game up, we may as well start over, but I am willing to look to see how far back I would need to go to change my defense.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Let me know.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]

---

[/size][/font][/align][font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:17 PM
To: Itsjustme[/font]
[font=tahoma]Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font][/align][font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]I prepared a huge reply to your email. Suffice it to say that in answering your points my anger, disappointment and feelings re: the non-application of "reasonableness" etc at what has happened all came to the fore so I thought that in terms of the game continuing it would be better not to send a post which spends several pages going over things we'll never agree on.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I'll summarise as follows in order to set the background for an offer I thought of on the drive home today:[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]1. Failure to address an issue because one doesn't know it exists is NOT the same as agreeing to it. If I'd known the teleportation issue existed I would never have agreed to a game in which it is being used as it is here. I consider its use in this manner as cheating... although I accept that it isn't specifically dealt with in our pre-game agreement ( since I didn't know the possibility existed) and, as such, you would be entirely justified in not viewing it as cheating. I think this dichotomy is why you feel nothing wrong has been done and I am so vehement about it.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]2. Air-mining is banned because these missions cannot be intercepted. Air transport is NOT banned because it can be intercepted by LRCAP ( which can be put over any base in range, including the base at which the fighters are based). As such I thought we established a clear precedent for banning things for which there is NO COUNTER. I have multiple counters to you flying, marching or shipping troops into Karachi. I have NONE to teleportation. On this ground alone, IMO, it should be banned for the exact same reason air-mining is banned.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]3. I do NOT play to win. In the WiR game I once proposed I specifically wanted to take the Germans in 43 or 44 since they were the underdog and thus more challenging to play. I play in order to derive enjoyment from planning and undertaking skillful operations with minimal forces. I don't play to win. Therefore my enjoyment largely hinges on whether I think skill gets rewarded in-game and not on whether I will last till 1946. The teleportation at Karachi is completely immune to any skill I have at setting up air and naval cordons and as such is massively detrimental to any enjoyment I may derive from the rest of the game.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]4. I passed up many things which were possible within the game mechanics because I felt they weren't reasonable. I passed up the chance to take Ledo because I felt it was an exploit of the Shock Attack + Pursue game mechanic. I could have used that game mechanic to speed up the fall of Karachi. So I applied the parameter of "reasonableness" to in-game mechanics. Now when you specifically reject that parameter after I've already limited myself for it I, essentially, feel like I've been kicked in the groin and taken advantage of. In-game it can be seen that I turned down things which would have advantaged me because they were unreasonable IMO. [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]5. I NEVER said that I wouldn't allow British reinforcements appear after Karachi was taken. Hell I even publicly said that if it required allowing you to retake Karachi to enable reinforcements then that's what I'd do. I must assume you don't remember this so I'll restate myself so as to be absolutely clear....[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]a) I do NOT care about the HI or resources at Karachi. I have enough of both.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]b) I was never interested in Karachi or shutting out British reinforcements per se. I was interested in closing off one geographical theatre of operations.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]c) I NEVER ever thought it was reasonable to prevent British and West African reinforcements ( ground troops, squadrons and ships) from appearing even after all of India fell. I didn't give a flying F*CK about game mechanics. If the game mechanics prevent something reasonable happening then I will attempt to find a work around to get around the flawed game mechanic. When I've maximised game mechanics ( such as the first move bonus) it is because I think they ARE defensible in terms of reasonableness... On 4th December the Dutch noted that Japanese convoys had moved past a certain longtitude which had previously been agreed with the British and Americans as representing definite proof of hostile intent. The British and Americans refused to agree to the Dutch request to initiate attacks on these convoys. So there is precedence for knowing convoys were in offensive positions and still doing nothing. It was on this that my defence of "reasonableness" for that issue rests. In the same way I always felt that British and African troops appearing after Karachi falls is "reasonable" and so I was completely for allowing it. Obviously if you are throwing reasonableness out the window then I will throw it out the window too and we really will go into a no holds barred type of game in which only the letter of the law and the letter of game mechanics limits what we do. I think both of us will enjoy such a game less than one tempered by a modicum of reasonableness.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]d) since I was operating under the spirit of "game mechanic+ reasonableness" I was entirely willing to allow you to retake Karachi and thus get access to its reinforcements and transfer them to Australia or CONUSA without any risk of interception. I said this to you and multiple times on my AAR so I don't know where you are coming from with your assertion that I am interested in getting rid of all british and West African reinforcements. The one caveat was that Indian reinforcements wouldn't be transferred since the backstory was that India would be declared independent, my forces would withdraw and neither side would set foot in it again for the rest of the war ( as it would be a neutral country).[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I can understand that you don't want to get shafted by the last two months of play and paying PPs etc etc etc... And neither do I want to get shafted by a game dynamic I firmly believe is NOT allowed by the spirit of the rules we agreed on.... it isn't forbidden by the letter of it but I never even knew this teleporting was possible when we had those discussions. So if you go by the letter of the law you win... However we both know that going by the letter of the law can lead to some screwed up situations.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]So, and I think this is actually a bit of a brainstorm, wouldn't the fairest thing to do be to turn back the clock? I have been saving the game at the beginning of every month in order to do a monthly summary of production etc etc and I went back to April 1st... On that day the elements of your fleet which got away from Ceylon are still active, Karachi is only besieged by a couple of Tank Regiments and there is fighting throughout the rest of India. In addition you haven't lost your two carriers at French Frigate Shoals.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]What would you think about turning the clock back to 1st April and negotiating all of the situations which may arise in the future of the game from that point? That way there would be fewer "grey areas" such as the one we seem to have stubmbled into and which has come so close to wrecking our game.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]If we turned the clock back I would propose the following around Karachi:[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]1. Karachi cannot be invaded but it is assumed to have fallen to Japanese forces and Karachi on-map actually represents Aden ( a major logistical base from which troops, planes etc are shipped to Australia). [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]2. All troops and ships and squadrons arriving at Karachi/Aden are granted free passage to Australia using a safe route within 8 hexes of the map edge. All forces currently at Karachi also get benefit of this free passage within 8 hexes of the map edge. ( This is just so that if some head for Broome Field etc I do have the option of intercepting them.)[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]3. India is declared independent and neutral and is inviolate to both sides for the rest of the game. My forces will mop up the British forces in the rest of the country outside of Karachi and then withdraw entirely from India. It may take some a while as they need to go via the paths into Burma. The only exception to this inviolability is that I can base some HQs and squadrons as required to draw supplies to repair oil etc so that I can benefit from non-Karachi Indian production. Once the supplies would be completed these HQs and air squadrons would move out.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]4. We can negotiate about supplies, fuel and resources from Karachi... If Karachi is drawing in 450,000 tons of supply per month maybe we could split the difference and you could freely transport 225,000 tons of supply to Australia per month? Same percentage ( 50%) for fuel and resources per month.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]This way:[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]1. I get the Indian theatre removed from play ( which I wanted and which I think my play has earned)[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]2. You get all the reinforcements from Britain and Africa and can send them to Australia or CONUSA.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]3. You get maybe 50% ( negotiable) of the supplies etc which the British Empire and the rest of India are assumed to deliver to Karachi per month for use in Australia and elsewhere.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]It is an unorthodox solution but I think it gives each of us some rewards for rolling back. You get all those PP you spent on American units and Aussie units back, you get your carriers back. You get guaranteed British reinforcements etc for the rest of the war. IF Australia falls then we would obviously extend the safe passage zone to allow you to bring forces to CONUSA and would allow you to keep whatever bases were required to refuel the transports bringing the troops to CONUSA.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]If you think this is workable ( or at least worth further investigation) then I can send you your orders turn for April 1st or 2nd and you can examine it in order to assess the benefits which will acrrue to your forces from this course of action. I will, of course, benefit also insofar as India will be removed from my concerns.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]The real winner however will be the game since a non-ideal solution we can both live with will make the next 4 years+ of gaming a lot more survivable.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]Anyways let me now. And as always if you can't live with the above then turning it down wont terminate the game.[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]From: Itsjustme[/font]
[font="times new roman"]To:     Nemo[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"][font=arial] I really am not angry, upset or otherwise emotional about this.  It’s a game.  I’m sorry you are unhappy.  I’m happy to review your proposals any time you like.[/font]
 

[font="times new roman"]

---

[/size][/font][/align][font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo[/font]
[font=tahoma]Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:32 PM
To: Itsjustme[/font]
[font=tahoma]Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font][/align][font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]One thing... If we continue this then I would like two things...[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]1. We work out house rules for EVERYTHING now in order to avoid something similar happening in future... I relied on the application of "reasonableness" and feel very badly done by over how this worked out so I'd like to avoid similar surprises in the future. You don't have to agree re: my feelings over it working out but I think you can see that negotiating house rules now will prevent similar things in future.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]2. No fundamental changes can be made without both players agreeing to it...E.g. I tested 1.802 and think it is a major retrograde step for the game. I'm not eager to upgrade to it.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]In addition my gf is over to visit from tomorrow so that will probably introduce a nice cooling off period which will be good for both of us. You are travelling, I'll be busy and in a few days we can come back to the game somewhat fresher.[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"][font=arial]From: Itsjustme[/font][/font]
[font=arial]To:     Nemo[/font]
[font="times new roman"][font=arial][/font][/font] 
[font="times new roman"][font=arial]I think that the best thing to do is agree to disagree and wish you well in your new game.  I wanted and we agreed to a lunacy game. The below rules modify that significantly after you have won massive victories across the map using lunacy rules and I did not lodge a single objection to a single action you initiated.[/font]
 
[font=arial]For the record I will make a few comments below.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

---

[/size][/font][/align][font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:52 AM
To: Itsjustme
Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I think we need to rediscuss our house rules since:[/font]
[font="times new roman"]a) you seem to be operating under the assumption that if it hasn't been previously agreed then it is OK ( whereas I was operating under the belief that precedent would apply)[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]b) if situations similar to Karachi occur in future then it could negatively impact the continuance of our game.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]So in an effort to avoid this I'm including a list of some things I think we need to decide upon before continuing. I'm completely open to you raising issues YOU wish to clarify also as this has to be a two way street if we're to avoid things getting even worse. They are mainly taken from the house rules I agreed for my new game where I'm playing as Allies so, obviously, I consider them pretty fair to the Allies as I'm playing under them. You may, of course, well differ.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Overall Mechanics:
China: Chinese units cannot be re-assigned so that when they are destroyed they re-appear elsewhere. The exception to this are Chinese SEAC units. Even for these units once all Chinese cities are taken they should have their replacements turned off. [/font]
[font=arial]It was obvious from the beginning that these units could be reassigned, destroyed and reappear based on their then HQ assignment. I agreed, at your request to turn off reinforcements when/if all Chinese cities were eliminated.  I would not agree to limit where they can be reassigned.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Soviet Union: [/font]
[font="times new roman"]If the entire Soviet Union is captured but some Soviet formation fragments remain elsewhere they should have replacements turned off as Stalin would not be sending replacements to CONUSA etc to rebuild shattered units. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I think that given your defence of Karachi as being within the game mechanics if not reasonable that we need to review the situation on the Soviet border. Reasonableness prompted me to give a 1 month warning re: Karachi. I think that this should be reset so that the Soviet Union can be invaded with no warning as this is not reasonable but falls within the game mechanics... precisely the situation you have created at Karachi.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]You proposed the 1 month rule, I didn’t ask for it.  If you would prefer no notice, then so be it.  If an easy and quick victory is what you seek, the stupid deployment of soviet forces certainly helps you do that.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]

India: Should the Japanese player take all of India except Karachi it is at his discretion whether or not to capture Karachi. If he captures Karachi he will withdraw from it and allow the Allied player to retake it with a shipped in BF in order to allow British and West African reinforcements to arrive. All reinforcements arriving in Karachi, EXCEPT Indian troops, must be shipped out to Australia via transport as soon as is feasible. In addition 50% of the supply, fuel and resources arriving at Karachi per month can also be shipped to Australia. If the Japanese player elects not to capture Karachi the same rules as above apply ( the only difference is that in taking Karachi the Japanese player would eliminate some currently extant units at the cost of a prolonged siege). India will, in addition, be declared Independent and Japanese forces must be withdrawn. In return Allied re-invasion of India or Ceylon is prohibited during the later course of the game.  ( This dynamic gives the Japanese player a reward for doing well in India whilst allowing British and african reinforcements to continue arriving in-theatre and is, I feel, reasonable to both sides). [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]This is precisely the last deal I offered you and which you rejected.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]No.  I’ve offered you the only deal I am willing to accept.  I am willing to accept the loss of all UK reinforcements (as I have said repeatedly) if I lose Karachi.  This despite the fact that this would never have happened.  See, I agreed to rules by which I can live, even if I didn’t understand the full impact.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Australia. Should Australia be captured in their entirety then the troops and aerial squadrons raised in Australia should have their replacements turned OFF. So long as a single base in Australia remains in Allied hands Australian forces can have replacements turned ON. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I think I agreed to this or something like this some time ago.  This despite this was, by your own definition a lunacy game.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
New Zealand. The same rule as applies to Australia applies here. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]See above.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]

CONUSA: If the Japanese player can capture all bases in CONUSA then all US forces on-map have their replacements turned off. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Umm, I think the game would be over at this point, but yes for the record.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Canada: Same rule as above. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]See above[/font]
[font="times new roman"]



PDUs:
There is no limit to the Japanese ability to change units from divebomber to level bomber. [/font]
[font="times new roman"]
In return there is no limit on Allied ability to change units from twin to four-engined bombers at will. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Uh, yes, although I took this as a given.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]

Submarines and ASW:
There is no limit on the number of ships in an ASW TF under 1.795+. Prior to 1.795+ ASW TFs are limited to a size of 6 + 1 ( per year of war)... So 6 ships in 41, 7 in 42, 8 in 43, 9 in 44 and 10 in 45. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I don’t think I’ve ever complained about all of your ships in an ASW TF.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
No submarine-based invasions. If you want information then at the very least commit a half-full AP . [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I agreed to this eons ago.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Air War:
Four-engined bombers set to naval attack can fly no lower than 15,000 feet after 1st January 1943. This is to allow the Allied player to mount desperate and costly defences in 1942 but to prevent them from turning the sea into a no-go area for Japanese forces after 1943 when the Allies are awash in B24s and, later, B29s. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]No.  This is completely ridiculous.  You want to restrict my ability to win back territory as quickly as you won it.  Not just no, but absolutely no.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
No limitations on Corsair basing on CVs. In return there is no limitation on the types of planes the Japanese carriers can carry. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]If the plane can fly off a carrier, fine.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Mining:
No restrictions at all. [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Again, absolutely not.  I agreed not to mine by plane at the outset.  I will not now allow you to mine by plane as I am about to go on the offensive where I was not permitted to mine by plane while you were on the offensive.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]
Ground
No breakdown of LCU's in combat to reduce fatigue and disruption. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font=arial]I didn’t know that this was possible.  Sounds like you didn’t either, but whatever.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]
 [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]P.s. And I've asked on my AAR. Obviously a load of people just care about me getting my face mashed in so have no problem with anything whatsoever being done, including the teleporting back of A-Bombs and B-2s through a time rift. Of those who have spoken up all consider the use of the Northern Pacific HQ to draw US Divisions to Karachi at NO PP cost and 60 days earlier than the mechanic involving their PP being changed to be a clear exploitation of a game mechanic ( which is clearly outruled by our rules).[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]I am sure you have asked.  I am not so sure that people simply care about you getting your face mashed.  Have you considered that folks might just see your complaints as whining after you have captured most of the map with lunacy rules and then complain about my use of them?  In any event, what would you have me do?  I sent the Northern HQ to Karachi weeks ago.   Only two or three CONUS units have arrived in Karachi.  The fact of the matter is, I played by the rules.  You don’t like it and now you want to change them.   As I’ve said before, I view this game as a very enjoyable digital sandbox.  I am not enjoying the game anymore.  I am sorry you think this is my fault.  I will respectfully disagree.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] [font=arial]
[font=tahoma]From:[/font][font=tahoma] Nemo[/font]
[font=tahoma]Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Itsjustme
Subject: RE: RE: PBEM Grand Campaign[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]Trey,[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]I've thought about it. If neither you nor I are having fun anymore then probably no point continuing... What do you say we swap passwords and see the respective situations at different parts of the game? I've saved a few key dates to see how things might have turned out differently and would love to check that out + I'd like to see if Karachi actually is doable at this stage.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]So if you agree we can swap passwords and drop the game.[/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"] [/font][/align]
[font="times new roman"]Fionn[/font][/align][/font][/size][/font][/align][/color][/size][/font][/align][/size][/color][/font][/align][/align][/align][/blockquote]

[Nemo121]

LOL! It seems itsjustme objected to what he felt was my labelling him as a quitter (which I think I bent over backwards to explain wasn't the situation... we just realised that we had VERY different ideas of how we had agreed to handle the grey areas which, inevitably, crop up. No harm, no blame, obviously lots of hard feelings but definitely not labelling someone a quitter.)


I believe I was clear before as regards you not being a bad sport or dishonest or anything like that in terms of future games with anyone else... I wasn't interested in playing under the spirit of the game itsjustme wanted to play under. He wasn't interested in playing under the spirit of the game I was interested in. Simple. No-one's "bad" or "evil" or "unreliable" for that. It is just a MAJOR object lesson to everyone to agree house rules before starting a game .

Oh and if the above is still insufficient for you and you are ONLY interested in clearing things up as opposed to lashing out then you still know my email address.


P.s. Talking about context... There are at least two of my emails missing there including, rather crucially, my 2nd-last one to you in which I gave way on pretty much every objection you raised to my proposals. I think that's interesting.

I'll include it below for completeness...

Well you've certainly jumped the gun there...

What I did was pretty much copy and paste the rules I'd agreed with for my new game as the Allies. That is why the Australian, new Zealand, US, Canadian and Indian "rules" are in there... I know that the OZ, NZ, US and Canadian rules are no different than in our game and that the Indian rules are what you didn't agree to... However I just cut and paste pretty much my whole agreement with my new opponent. Same goes for the US four-engined bombing etc.

See what I did in my new game was learn from karachi. I took it as a given that what is happening at Karachi wouldn't happen SO, learning from that, I decided to assume there were no "givens" and that if it wasn't written down and agreed it wasn't "given". That's why I put in the "given" of bomber/dive-bomber/twin/four-engined bomber upgrading. Yes it was assumed but the whole point of the "rules" is to make explicit what is and isn't allowed such that if it isn't mentioned here then it probably isn't allowed. Same thing goes for submarine ASW. We haven't had an issue about it in our game but, again, learning from karachi where I was blind-sided by what happened I thought I'd try to cover all the bases by covering everything I could even think of as being a problem...


I think you failed to consider that this was a cut and paste. Hell, to try to avoid causing upset I removed a lot of the stuff about banning me from teleporting units to Karachi and having to ship them there using a safe corridor etc.


So with that, hopefully, clarified let's focus on the areas where I think we still disagree:
1. India... Ok, as far as I'm concerned we've agreed to proceed under the current system with the caveat that if Karachi falls no further British reinforcements arrive. (Your suggestion.)


2. Soviet Union... You think the no warning attack is in bad form. I think that it conforms to the "unreasonable but within the game mechanics" rule which seems to be the measure of Karachi. I think that if the above is the measure of things at Karachi then it should be the measure of things at the Soviet Union.. I think it is unreasonable (same as Karachi) but it is within the game mechanics ( same as Karachi). That's why I propose the change. I think it replicates what is happening at Karachi ( to your advantage) to the Soviet Union ( to my advantage).


3. Restriction on four-engined bombing NAVAL ATTACKs in 1943 onwards. I'm not sure if you read that I was only suggesting a restriction on altitude for naval attacks. Read the Aztez vs Vorsteher (sic?) AAR to see what B-29s on naval attack in 1944 do... Essentially nothing Japanese can put to sea. That fails the "reasonableness" doctrine hugely. I don't think that suggesting that restriction on NAVAL ATTACKS only massively limits your ability to take back territory. I think it clearly avoids the exploitation of a game bug whereby US Bombers which drop bombs have a to hit% for each bomb instead of each stick of bombs such that they can carpet bomb entire carrier fleets into Davey Jones' locker in an afternoon . Still I can see that restricting it due to "reasonableness" could be seen as not conforming to the game mechanics standard and therefore if you are opposed to the restriction then we can proceed with strategic bombers performing naval attacks at whatever altitude they like. Note... I never suggested even the slightest change to their ability to port, airfield or ground attack.

4. Mining vs air-mining...
Umm, Trey, Japanese forces can't air-mine. So, since air-mining is already verbotten since it is uncounterable by the Japanese all this means is that with no restrictions on mining we can use minelayers to lay any number of mines in any hex we want. I think you are seeing me trying to gain unfair advantage where no such attempt exists. I cut the section of the new house rules in which we agreed not to air mine so I can see that might have led to some confusion alright.

5. Changing HQs of units so they teleport elsewhere at no PP cost.
Ok, well, we just must agree to disagree on that. I know that much of the teleporting you have going on has already been initiated or has already finished ( the Chinese units in the Soviet Union) so there isn't much you can do about it at this stage. So we can agree to disagree and move on on this issue also.


So, as I see it, there are FIVE issue on which we don't agree and really only two which haven't been settled either in your reply or mine "Soviet Union + four-engined naval attack. I suggest that if we apply the rule of "if it is unreasonable ( to one or other or both players) but the game mechanics allow it then it is allowed so long as either player wants it" then the Soviet Union can be attacked with no warning and four-engined naval attacks can occur at any altitude.

This clears up any and all "rules" issues I have to my satisfaction ( except for India but I think we can agree to disagree and just agree not to discuss it anymore as it is too poisonous an issue right now). If it does to yours then I am happy to continue. I'm sure you can understand my desire to clarify some rules before continuing so that the falling out which occurred over India doesn't occur again.

P.s. I think that the above phrase " If it is deemed unreasonable by one or other player or both players but allowed by the game mechanics then unless BOTH players choose to disallow it it is allowed" may be a better yardstick for us to go by. That pretty much describes the situation which seems to be developing and as a yardstick it seems pretty clear and should help avoid similar things in future, no?

I';m sorry I had to quote that since I figured it was better to just say "we were incompatible" and leave it at that but it you're going to quote a major exchange but leave out the email where I give way on pretty much every issue you objected to... well, that's a little bit unfair.

Now, I've said the game ended because we had incompatible views and that I don't view you as a "quitter" or anything like that. I certainly do have issues with how you seem to interpret many things that are said as attempts to get advantage when no such attempt exists but that's neither here nor there when it comes to game mechanics or your status as someone who will play even when things go against them.

If the above isn't good enough for you then, again, I ask you to email me privately so that you can tell me what it is you need to hear me say so that you can feel I haven't besmirched you. I wouldn't play you again ( and I'm sure that's likewise) BUT I would have no hesitation recommending you to a friend so long as they had exhaustively negotiate every house rule possible before sending the first turn.

So, is that good enough for you or do you need me to say something else in order to make you feel like I haven't slandered your reputation? Seriously, you are a good guy. You are smart, funny during emails about the game and aren't a quitter. You and I have gone too far down a bad road to enjoy this game anymore but so long as the house rules were negotiated in detail in advance I'd happily tell anyone to play you. In fact IF anyone calls you a quitter on this forum I offer right now that once you let me know about it I'll post to whatever thread they posted to and state that you certainly weren't a quitter in my game.

We disagreed honestly, we realised too late, we couldn't fix it and now there's obviously ill feeling but it isn't going to be solved by a public fight. You are no quitter and your reputation isn't sullied by the fact that we couldn't agree. That should, IMO, suffice. If it doesn't then let's discuss it privately. A flame war helps no-one.

[Andy Mac]

Guys sounds to me having read the posts that you had an honest disagreement where you both genuinely held strong views despite IMO discussions on both sides you couldnt reach an agreement so there doesnt seem to be a lot of point in falling out over it.
&nbsp;
Anyway I hope you both enjoy future games.
&nbsp;
Andy
&nbsp;

[aztez]

This thread is getting into flames!!! [:(]

To be honest I think Andy Mac made some very good comments about India.

IF it is left mildly garrisoned than that would be unrealistic.

I don't think developers meant actually Karachi to be seized. Otherwise they would have given an option to divert British reinforcements to US or Oz in game engine. (The Witp map does not prepresent whole map.

Teleporting units can be two way sword takin this into account.

Personally I would recommend that a ceasefire should be put into place in India. Meaning that Japanese troops should withdraw from Karachi and allied side should not be able launch any offensives out of there until late 1943. That would give both sides some operational freedom.

That is just my personal view of things.

These things would made game more balanced. Japanese could not leave India and Allied side still would stand on a fighting chance later on.

ps: I would be intrested on save game at April or the Current situation. (I doubt I have currently time pick it up due to IRL but I'am intrested on seeing what actually has taken place). Email me if that is ok.