Just to let everyone know, a third run did not effect the results by more than a percentage point or 2. IMO the Japanese Player is just plain too assured that nothing is going to go wrong.
The only effects that seem to occur (for DEC 7th Surprise OFF, historical first turn OFF, and Variable Deployment ON) are that the PBYs in PH do alot more attacking IJN subs in the vicinity of Oahu than is normal and Wake Is (which should not be attacked until 11 Dec in any case) seems to hold out more than is likely in the stock 15.)
If there is one thing that should be properly simulated in this game it is the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese arrived over the attack zone with 'nearly' complete surprise. Their only foul-up on approach was a misidentified attack flare which caused the divebombers to attack before they were scheduled. Instead of everyone attacking at once the torpedo bombers were to have attacked first.
If anything CAP should be set at 10% for two of the fighter groups and nearly everyone else at Training 0, except for the PBY's who should be on Naval Search 10.
except for the PBY's who should be on Naval Search 10.
----------------
I would think that since the area KB attacked from was not included in the search pattern because they "couldn't/wouldn't" attack from that direction preclude the 10% search. At 10% there is a probabality that KB will be spotted.
To dive into that probabality opens the pandora's box of "what-ifs".
Respectfully,
Whipple
MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors
The most gamey example of play has to be the "Lunacy and Shrewdness" AAR. What complete crap, and the Japanese player actually believes his opening moves were possible!! What a laugh. Good starting point for how not to play.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
To each their own and all that.
What I would suggest, as a general rule, rather than getting into specifics about exactly what limits should and shouldn't be set is that you should try t negotiate every possible grey area before starting the game. Even if you only want to say "there are no restrictions on x or y" then be sure to put that down so what is proscribed is explicitly stated. In addition it helps make sure neither player is under a misapprehension as to where the boundaries are or what spirit they are playing under.
After all as this thread shows what is gamey to some is just good sense to others and what is beyond the pale to some is an interesting operational gambit to others. So what matters in my opinion ( and yours may well differ) is making sure there are no grey areas in one's game so that the potential for misunderstanding is minimised. What you and your opponent find "fair" is so variable as to be almost meaningless. What matters is that the two of you agree and legislate all the grey areas as far as possible. I failed to do that in a game and it almost ruined it and created a lot of trouble. I learned my lesson and instead of 3 or 4 house rules and a nebulous "we'll negotiate the rest as it arises and come to reasonable compromises" my new game began with a list of house rule about 6 times longer and FAR fewer grey areas .
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
I think the objection to perfect intel had to do with recon raids via sub or fast transport that told you exactly what units are at an enemy base, and what their current assault value is, or for picket ships that tell you the exact location of an enemy fleet, exactly how many and what type of planes they launch at you, and exactly what squadrons those planes belong to. So you can write down the squadron names and then check them against the easily available lists of enemy squadrons to say "Ok, he has this carrier, this carrier and this carrier operating out there"
Yup we disagree on this one and as you said came to an agreement to agree to disagree because I think it is legitimite but its still an interesting debate [:D]
I think for me the key point is warships or military auxilliaries versus ordianry AK's but I am aware we wont agree.
I think the key point for the HR debate is Pauk and I disagree and to be fair it happened on about turn 5 but the game didnt end because of it - we had an open discussion about it we realised the disagreement and resolved the debate to allow the game to go on personally discussing these things early before it becomes a game destroyer is important.
(Even when the allies screw up and make a mistake and ruin a Jap ambush .......*Marblehead*....still sorry about that one Pauk !!!)
Pauk wanted to ambush my damaged BB's fleeing to the West Coast (he actually missed 1 at sea that had no where to run had he went just a little more south after he was spotted [:D][:D]) I was using patrols to try and figure out if he was lingering because I knew the game gave the Japanese Carriers a lot more fuel than they had historically. As I said by the time he was spotted I had 1 or 2 crippled BB's in harms way.
Its all interesting
well to be honest, i have to say it happend about 3 weeks in the game.And that is huge wase of time for KB which could be used somewhere else... As for the Marblehead incident, do not worry - i was just to lazy to re-do my turn[:D]
The bottom line is - you may consider yourself extremely lucky if you find a opponent with similar thoughts on the game. It is not easy because we are all arogant, narcisoid (sp?) and competitive bunch of bas*ards[;)][:)]
But, i must to say - although i sometimes don't agree with Andy, he is very consistent in his attitude towards the game regardless about the side (Jap or Allies). And you have to give credit for that[:)]
Not replying to you, Pauk, just the thread in particular.
Couple of points: Gamey in my eyes simply means exploiting the game engine in a manner that produces a result that wasn't possible IRL. The Japanese player has a chance to exploit the flaws early on, the Allied has the opportunity to do for the rest of the game.
I believe many player's Japanese opening moves can be gamey. Taking Kendari on turn 1 or any other deep invasion thrust into allied territory is gamey IMO. Pounding Pearl for days on end is not... <IF> the Japanese player withdraws, refuels and resumes the attack. In one of my PBEM games, I hit PH on day one, withdrew to the north, refueled and proceeded eastward. I was looking for cripples leaving PH. Didn't find any cripples but found Saratoga heading for PH!!! I didn't think that was gamey and neither did my opponent. However, if I had done the same thing without refueling then it would have been IMO.
As far as the allies withdrawing or concentrating forces in the early days of the war... what's wrong with that? That's what a good commander should do. The allied player cannot defend everything, he must pick and choose. In my PBEM with AndyMac, he chose to defend Manila to the hilt. Our game is in March 42 and I still haven't achieved even 1:1 odds despite having sent nearly every spare unit I had to bolster the units already in the PI. He has greatly slowed down my advance and that is a great tactic IMO. The only thing wrong with it is that he is doing it to ME dammit!
I don't believe its gamey to launch Kates or Bettys on a port attack where they will drop torpedoes. That is a flaw in the game but it is one that I can't do anything about except to never conduct a port attack by torpedo capable aircraft. To do that would be to tie one hand behind my back.
Greatly overstacking an airfield is a gamey exploit IMO. By that I mean that if you have 300 combat aircraft at a level 4 airfield and are attempting to use them every turn, that's gamey. If, however, you have 300 aircraft on that field and are rotating the groups on combat missions to stay below 200 sorties per phase, that's okay. I also don't include transport aircraft or any other non-weapons capable aircraft in that calculation. IMO, the only airfields that should be allowed to be greatly overstacked are those where siginficant reinforcements arrive (West Coast, Karachi, Osaka, Tokyo, etc).
One of the worst gamey exploits IMO is using multiple single ship TFs to prevent bombardments. I don't care whether the TFs are made of PTs, AKs, MSWs or what have you. When the object is simply to reduce the number of op points available to a bombarding TF so as to make it break off without bombarding, thats gamey! This applies to Japanese and Allied alike. BTW, having a PT TF of 20+ PTs is a viable method for intercepting bombarders.
Allied heavy bombers is another area that is ripe for exploitation, especially if PDU is on. A definite house rule is required to ensure that the heavies don' take over the game.
But regardless of what I consider gamey is or is not, its up to the players involved to determine what they believe is gamey. Want a lunacy game... go for it. Want a historical type game, agree to some basic rules first.
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
After manila falls I will let you in on the secret to Manilas long stand and it isnt just the Urban bonus or Prep points !!!!
Don't suppose I could get you to tell me your secret before I strip the rest of the SAA, could I? Didn't think so. Oh, well, its BANZAI time!
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
I would venture it was supply delivered either via air and or sub...
Probably by sub as he has 10+ in the Manila hex. I've got several air units on ASW patrol and they occasionally attack but no hits AFAIK. If he is rotating them and delivering supplies, he is getting by my ASW ships on patrol in the region.
I've also been bombing with 150+ bombers and bombarding with artillery for well over a month. I have launched a few ground attacks and destroyed the forts. The problem is that he has about 1100 AV points there and I'm hard pressed to get 2:1 odds without the multipliers he has. My casualties are quite high whenever I do attack.
Manila will fall eventually. But it may (and that's a big may) just have to wait until I conquer the rest of the SRA.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
I would venture it was supply delivered either via air and or sub...
Probably by sub as he has 10+ in the Manila hex. I've got several air units on ASW patrol and they occasionally attack but no hits AFAIK. If he is rotating them and delivering supplies, he is getting by my ASW ships on patrol in the region.
I've also been bombing with 150+ bombers and bombarding with artillery for well over a month. I have launched a few ground attacks and destroyed the forts. The problem is that he has about 1100 AV points there and I'm hard pressed to get 2:1 odds without the multipliers he has. My casualties are quite high whenever I do attack.
Manila will fall eventually. But it may (and that's a big may) just have to wait until I conquer the rest of the SRA.
Chez
Keep plugging away ...check out my Ground combat tested thread and the thread on my now defunct PBEM. Had Manila in my possession by early April, iirc. Just make sure you are bringing in plenty of supply for your guys...
since jwxspoon gave a rather misleading account of a game prep discussion - and I rather care to discount SGT Swanson's reponse for being uninformed not to say rediculous.
And just to make sure: It is a CHS ver. 2 environment.
Lets look at just one area: China
From a historical perspective it should be quite clear, that the fronts after Dec. 7th 41 have been quite static in China. For a variety of reasons: The Japanese had what they wanted prior to that date - and they thought of better uses for the troops elsewheres - and Chang had his own agenda. While of course the allies - esp. FDR had another.
So can we please concur to: All is quiet on the Chinese front ? And please have a close look at the CHS 2 OOBs as of late.
From a political/strategical point of view Chang was more concerned with controlling the provincial "war lords" with loyal units - he was reputed to use about 100.000 of his best troops to "control" Maos communists (and the Russians ceased to support Nationalist China and Mao not to offend Japan) - while on the other hand the allies (esp. FDR) tried to keep Chang on their side - mostly because the success of neither MacArthurs nor Nimitz plans did yield a lot of success till early 1944 and to keep an "Option" open if one or the other failed. (needless to say that Chang betted his fortunes on eiter Mrs. Changs charms (or rather the US Media perception of those) or the miscarriage of some allied plans outside China)
This was a kind of last resort scenario - even for FDR - since it was clear, that Chang sought allied support more to "feather his own nest" than to commit to any move against the Japanese. Outside his 500 airplane airforce scheme promoted by his airforce chief Chennault - a confirmed alcoholic)
This of course included the use of Chinese units west of the border: Be it Burma beyond the initial comitment nor Indo China (Hanoi) - not to speak of India.
And lets not forget - it was the FDR administration (opposed by the Brits), who offered up at least half of Europe to Stalin, if he opened another front against Japan in Mandshuria at Jalta, to avoid the frustrations in China.
The most simple house rule for China is a simple cease fire - and it is the most historic. Period. The Japanese take Hong Kong and this is it. This rule needs reconsideration if by a set date the allied have not managed to take a set number of positions (Central Pacific, Burma whatever). Easy. Right ? Just to reflect the strategical options kept at the time.
But.
From an allied players perspective, this frees up the 33rd and 31st Div (Burma) , 4th and 21st Div (Southern Area) and to to some degree the 38th Div (after Hong Kong) to be transported elsewheres immediately- units stationed in China at the start.
And of course, the Japanese player may use some troops in the area in other theaters paying PPs.
This is of course contrary to any allied players plans. If anything, it should be the plan to use the Chinese to stop the Japanese from moving any troops (whatever the command) out of China. Simple. That means the Chinese start closing in on at least two Japanese positions.
While in the past (CHS ver 1.x) the "Mongolian" units offered a chance to the Japanese to both hold on to positions and free up those units which could be moved, the change of command of the "Mongolian" units (one goes for 300+ PPs) in CHS 2.x makes it impossible - both holding on and moving units out - or at least one of them.
Now lets asume the latter is a sort of intention with CHS 2x- making the Japanese player "work" to free up his units. Fine with me.
But it still requires a couple of "conditional" house rules (time or objectice related) to keep things in (a semi historic what if) perspective.
If an allied player does not consent to some sort of "house rule" concerning China, you can be sure of a couple of things:
1: He has no clue of the CHS 2x scenarios.
2: Ask him to stop the use of the term "historical" in the context - since he has no clue or just cares to deceive you.
3: You know, he is trying to put you at a disadvantage - because he knows no better.
4: Offer him a free for all - and if he backs off, call him chicken.
5: Enjoy his posts.
Cheers
Ooops. Just forgot - I am a self seeking incompetend - not only in witp - and my one and only hope of winning is to "cheat" with rules. Yup I am the gamey type.
Is there a group out there to help me ?
Remember that the first law of motion is to look where you're going. A man with a stiff neck has no place in an airplane.
Technical Manual No. 1-210, Elementary Flying, War Department, Washington,
no responese ? Interesting. Did I ruffle some feathers by pointing out, that some house rules could be gamey ?
While it looks like I made my point re. incompetent allies in China, I may be allowed to refer to one of my current games:
It is CHS 2.03. Both allies and Japs are free to move including Mandshuria.
Guess what, the PPs saved by the japs amounts to two Divisions from Mandshuria. To be used as garrisons in more demanding places. Plus some small fry used in digging trenches.
Now to the meat:
My opponent cared to go for Nanchang early. This meant all reinforcements for the place need to come along the road from Shangahei - to avoid the "maniac" attack across a river.
I somehow managed to clear the road to Nanchang from Shanghai and one of my Divs. just managed to get there to help fend off the latest - and probably decicive - attack. Just a hairs breafth. Very, very close and very exciting.
Nanchang is far from save - the acion took place at the end of 12/41 - and rthe 33rd and 21st Div. are still in China.
But if Nanchang does surfive, the innitative is with the Japanese again.
Do you really care to miss out on this kind of "evolution" based on skill or the luck of war ?
My next rant is about the central and southwest pacific !
Cheers
Remember that the first law of motion is to look where you're going. A man with a stiff neck has no place in an airplane.
Technical Manual No. 1-210, Elementary Flying, War Department, Washington,
Problem with him, is that he doesn't see it our way.
Though, Jeff (and I was going to tell you this at the CMvention), some may consider moving B-17's or any US air unit to an area that didn't or doesn't have a US Base Force Unit in the game is realistically and or historicaly as being gamey. Think of it this way: Sing doesn't have the mechanics that know a B-17, doesn't have the parts for a B-17, and doesn't have the trained crew members. So, based on the fact that the game doesn't take any of this into account, only that the base has supply and you have a pool of pilots, the game oks the move.
Just an insight.
SGT Swanson
U.S. Army, Infantry
B Co 4/502d Inf. Berlin BDE (87-90)
A Co 5/502d Inf. Berlin BDE (90-93)
B Co 2/502d Inf. 101st Airborne Div. (93-95)
some may consider moving B-17's or any US air unit to an area that didn't or doesn't have a US Base Force Unit in the game is realistically and or historicaly as being gamey
Actually, B-17s operated from the Dutch bases in SRA (with help from RDAF base forces), during the opening months of WW2. There were some issues, and you could simulate that by higher Ops Damages if you were wanted to. But the weather had a greater impact on their operations, than working with RDAF support crews.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
ORIGINAL: Feinder
Actually, B-17s operated from the Dutch bases in SRA (with help from RDAF base forces), during the opening months of WW2. There were some issues, and you could simulate that by higher Ops Damages if you were wanted to. But the weather had a greater impact on their operations, than working with RDAF support crews.
-F-
Any way to read more about this? In my game I did not send US aircraft from the Philippines to DEI because of this. I just assumed they could not operate there. I sent them to OZ or China.
.
