The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

GJ, Do you have any HR preventing other Allied units operating out of Russian bases once the Russians are active?

Yup, you bet it [;)]

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

GJ, Do you have any HR preventing other Allied units operating out of Russian bases once the Russians are active?

Yup, you bet it [;)]

Ya ...that HR lesson was learned from "Taming the Bear" [;)] Oh what a thread this creates in terms of understanding Soviet history and speculaton. One thing .. Ahistorical arguements supporting how IJ builds up scenario 2 power, overruns China and India with Germany remaining the main focus, and the US continues to withdrawal out of theater [the game basis everything on a Midway disaster that happened in RL that often does not happen in the game ..] ..well that seems plausible ... in the same light the Western Allies basing aircraft on Soviet territory "That would never happen!" [:'(]

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Waiting for Rader to come back home, here's the status of my CV Fleet:

At my immediate disposal (meaning in combat shape) we have:

CV LexII
CV Intrepid
CV Franklin
CV Hornet
CV HornetII
CVL Bellau Wood

Ready in the next 20 days:
CV Enterprise
CV Indefatigable
CVL Hermes

Ready in 3 months
CV YorkTown
CV Victorious
CV Bunker Hill

Ready in 6/8 months
CVL Indipendence
CVL Bataan
CVL Princeton
CVL Langley
CV Yorktown II
CV Wasp II
CV Indomitable

Plus all the reinforcements coming in...

So for the immediate defence of my LOC we have 5 CVs, 1 CVL and 23 CVE, meaning a force of nearly 500 fighters and 500 attack planes...could be better, i know...but it's always better than nothing[8|]

Well thats not too bad, looks like you will have parity with rader in the next 6/8 months. What are your confirmed losses in CVs from the CAP debacle?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

GJ, Do you have any HR preventing other Allied units operating out of Russian bases once the Russians are active?

Yup, you bet it [;)]

But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

GJ, Do you have any HR preventing other Allied units operating out of Russian bases once the Russians are active?

Yup, you bet it [;)]

But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

"Russian and other allied units cannot be co-located or occupy each other's bases. "

Well, this is the HR Rader requested. My understanding is that it covers up almost every kind of coordinated fighting effort between the russians and the western allies.
An HR is like a contract. Its interpretation can always be stretched to some degrees. I could, for example, use 99 american/british APA, and 1 Russian cruiser to create an amphib convoy under the USSR Navy flag and land a russian army in Honsu, interpretating it as an extension of the Land Lease act... it's an interpretation that obviously tries to elude or evade the inner meaning of the HR which is clear: Russian and Western allies are two separate forces both enemy of Japan but that operate separated.

Will for sure be a subject to be discussed, but i will not feel particularly strong in arguing the right of my interpretation of the rule

"

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

GJ, Do you have any HR preventing other Allied units operating out of Russian bases once the Russians are active?

Yup, you bet it [;)]

But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

Just in case you missed that part... [;)]

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Miller

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Waiting for Rader to come back home, here's the status of my CV Fleet:

At my immediate disposal (meaning in combat shape) we have:

CV LexII
CV Intrepid
CV Franklin
CV Hornet
CV HornetII
CVL Bellau Wood

Ready in the next 20 days:
CV Enterprise
CV Indefatigable
CVL Hermes

Ready in 3 months
CV YorkTown
CV Victorious
CV Bunker Hill

Ready in 6/8 months
CVL Indipendence
CVL Bataan
CVL Princeton
CVL Langley
CV Yorktown II
CV Wasp II
CV Indomitable

Plus all the reinforcements coming in...

So for the immediate defence of my LOC we have 5 CVs, 1 CVL and 23 CVE, meaning a force of nearly 500 fighters and 500 attack planes...could be better, i know...but it's always better than nothing[8|]

Well thats not too bad, looks like you will have parity with rader in the next 6/8 months. What are your confirmed losses in CVs from the CAP debacle?

these are the ships already sunk

Wasp II, Indomitable, Yorktown II, Princeton and Langley are still struggling towards Hakkodate...they could sink anytime soon...but if they manage to get there i hope to save them within the next 8 months...well...probably 10...

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy



Yup, you bet it [;)]

But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

Just in case you missed that part... [;)]

Oh, probably i didn't understand Alfred's sentence in the right way (my english is still far from being decent guys). I understood he said: "You mustn't agree to any further HR that will prevent you from doing it"

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy





Yup, you bet it [;)]

But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

"Russian and other allied units cannot be co-located or occupy each other's bases. "

Well, this is the HR Rader requested. My understanding is that it covers up almost every kind of coordinated fighting effort between the russians and the western allies.
An HR is like a contract. Its interpretation can always be stretched to some degrees. I could, for example, use 99 american/british APA, and 1 Russian cruiser to create an amphib convoy under the USSR Navy flag and land a russian army in Honsu, interpretating it as an extension of the Land Lease act... it's an interpretation that obviously tries to elude or evade the inner meaning of the HR which is clear: Russian and Western allies are two separate forces both enemy of Japan but that operate separated.

Will for sure be a subject to be discussed, but i will not feel particularly strong in arguing the right of my interpretation of the rule

"

GreyJoy,

I have largely refrained from commenting on your opponent's approach and I won't fully unleash now, but he has always treated you, and the rest of the forum as fools. Nothing he puts forward to justify his actions has any validity, he misuses historical data, he misrepresents how the game operates, he misrepresents how he suffers from game mechanics. He might be a lovely individual in real life but he is not the saint you depict him as a player.

There is a very easy "legal" loophole around that "contract". Part of it you have already identified as sailing under a Soviet flag. The other leg is that you transport the Soviet army to a base on Hokkaido and the first day you land the first Soviet troops you change the base to Soviet command and move out all non-soviet forces.

GreyJoy, there is an old Spanish saying which is very applicable to you. He who makes himself of sugar, gets eaten by flies.

Alfred

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Alfred



But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

"Russian and other allied units cannot be co-located or occupy each other's bases. "

Well, this is the HR Rader requested. My understanding is that it covers up almost every kind of coordinated fighting effort between the russians and the western allies.
An HR is like a contract. Its interpretation can always be stretched to some degrees. I could, for example, use 99 american/british APA, and 1 Russian cruiser to create an amphib convoy under the USSR Navy flag and land a russian army in Honsu, interpretating it as an extension of the Land Lease act... it's an interpretation that obviously tries to elude or evade the inner meaning of the HR which is clear: Russian and Western allies are two separate forces both enemy of Japan but that operate separated.

Will for sure be a subject to be discussed, but i will not feel particularly strong in arguing the right of my interpretation of the rule

"

GreyJoy, there is an old Spanish saying which is very applicable to you. He who makes himself of sugar, gets eaten by flies.
Alfred

[:D] Very true Alfred about that old spanish saying! But i think i did defend my rights, even fighting for them, when i felt i was at 100% on the side of reason.
Under this particular matter, i have to admit that we talked a lot about the whole "russian thing" before we begun our match and i agreed with no hesitation on that particular HR (also because i did feel it wasn't historically uncorrect). I would probably express a "bad faith" if now, after one year, when this rule may become a "vulnus" for my future operations, i wanted to re-discuss it and change the "contract".
Rader has always been open to re-discuss the HRs every time i spotted a possible problem or underlined a rule that was becoming unbalancing with the going on of the game (see, for example, our latest re-opening of the whole night bombing feature).
I will talk to him openly about that, but having fixed in my mind another old saying (latin this time): Pacta Serbanda Sunt (agreements must be respected)

[Alfred]

To which I can quote the epitome of the Roman state, Pompey the Great:

"Don't quote me laws, I come armed with swords"

Alfred

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

To which I can quote the epitome of the Roman state, Pompey the Great:

"Don't quote me laws, I come armed with swords"

Alfred

That one was a good one. [;)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Alfred



But maybe no rule against Soviets operating out of Western Allied bases?

If no such rule exists, you could use the limited Soviet navy to slowly transfer a lot of the Soviet army to Hokkadio where it could be reloaded on the much more plentiful American landing craft to be unloaded in a single day on Honshu and blow through the Japanese defenses.

Under no circumstances hint you might do this nor agree to any rule which would prevent you from doing so.

Alfred

Just in case you missed that part... [;)]

Oh, probably i didn't understand Alfred's sentence in the right way (my english is still far from being decent guys). I understood he said: "You mustn't agree to any further HR that will prevent you from doing it"

Our posts crossed. BTW Alfred's subsequent posts are right. You have been taken advantage of. Go get 'em.

[House Stark]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

I was off for work, came back, peeked into the thread and read something about Kamikaze carriers......made my day.

Good yer stepped back from that one or I would have posted this

Who ever said i am Theon? Couldn't i be Victarion greyjoy? [;)]

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/a/a3/ ... reyjoy.jpg

You're too clever to be Victarion. And considering that your bold plans meet with success you're clearly not Theon. So that leaves you as Asha, or quite probably Euron.

[Wuffer]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

To which I can quote the epitome of the Roman state, Pompey the Great:

"Don't quote me laws, I come armed with swords"

Alfred

veni vidi risi

we know how this episode ends, perhaps not the best omen

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

ORIGINAL: Alfred

To which I can quote the epitome of the Roman state, Pompey the Great:

"Don't quote me laws, I come armed with swords"

Alfred

veni vidi risi

we know how this episode ends, perhaps not the best omen

Only because he arrived without swords.[:)]

Alfred

[Wuffer]

still, it was the first step of a headless confusion

[Wuffer]

but you are right, let the bears out

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: House Stark

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

I was off for work, came back, peeked into the thread and read something about Kamikaze carriers......made my day.

Good yer stepped back from that one or I would have posted this

Who ever said i am Theon? Couldn't i be Victarion greyjoy? [;)]

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/a/a3/ ... reyjoy.jpg

You're too clever to be Victarion. And considering that your bold plans meet with success you're clearly not Theon. So that leaves you as Asha, or quite probably Euron.

Look, the wolf is barking.

[Roger Neilson II]

Its an interesting idea from Alfred. In historical realism this would be an absolute no-no. In 1945 in Europe there was very serious concern that the Soviets would just blitz us as well, such was the level of apprehension about Stalin's motives.

On the other hand I have to question at which point this scenario departed from historical anyway........ it is debatable that the 7th December was the starting point........

Ho hum.

Roger