Matrix Games Forums

Well consider this a challenge to a game. You say you want a game which will go the distance and in which the Japanese have an ability to continue fighting into 1944 and 45. You also say that a true warrior shouldn't be afraid to play the weaker side. Japan is the weaker side in-game but in my Empires Ablaze mod it is significantly strengthened, particularly in 1944 and 45 in order to keep things competitive. I'm already playing a game with jagdfluger as the Allies. I believe the Allies are a bit too weak in 1942 in this mod and so have strengthened them a little and weakened Japan a little in the newest version of the mod ( due for release this weekend ).

My proposal to you is this... I need to test the mod again playing as Japan. I'm already playing Allies and have strengthened the Allies in this new version of the mod. I am challenging you to take on the scenario I did ( except with a stronger Allies and weaker Japan than in my version of the game ) using the same rules as I'm operating under in my game vs jagdfluger.

So, in effect I'll be playing Allies against Jagdfluger and playing Japan against you. You will be commanding an Allied side significantly stronger than my Allied side vs jagdfluger and I will be playing a Japan which has been weakened from the Japan jagdfluger plays. So, you should have an easier time of it than I am having as the Allies as your position will be strong than mine and mine will be weaker than jagdfluger's. Notwithstanding this I expect Japan to be competitive into 1944 and 1945


In any case I have 6 rules - 3 of which are purely to account for code issues and 3 of which have to do with game balance:

1. No dive-bombers can attack naval targets above 25,000 feet.
2. High-altitude kamikaze attacks cannot be higher than 25,000 feet.
3. Aden is off-limits to invasion - everything else can be invaded including CONUSA.
4. No aerial mining by allies as the Japanese cannot intercept it - code bug.
5. G9Ms cannot be used for port attacks --- their torpedoes would just dive into the bottom of the harbour.
6. Me-264 Behemoths CANNOT fly below 20,000 feet --- this is nothing to do with history but has to do with hit rates and game code issues.



As to the myriad rules you listed on your call for players in this forum:

1. No 4-engine bombers under 15,000 feet. I do not wish for this rule. If it can fly high then feel free to use it at high altitude as its accuracy will suck. this is realistic. Limiting it is unrealistic.

2. No B-29 under 20,000 feet or in anti-shipping roles. Well, again, B-29s could fly under 20,000 feet and could be used against shipping so this rule prevents behaviour which was possible. As such I do not wish for this rule.

3. Bombers must operate below 30,000 feet. No I disagree. If they can fly high then they should be allowed to.

All 3 of these rules cripple the Allies more than the Japanese. As such removing them would benefit, you, the Allied player.


Strategic bombing:
No limitations on strategic bombing targets, altitute etc.


PTs:
No limitation on PTs.
No limitations on ASW groups. Allies can use as many ships as they want as can the Japanese.
Re: Combining AKs, Aps etc into one TF while they are loading/unloading - that seems sensible and as it avoids exploitation of a game bug I'd be happy enough to have this rule although if you don't want it that's cool too.


Soviet restrictions:
If you want we can agree a time before which the Soviets won't enter the war. Up until that time the Soviets cannot redeploy their forces, move subs out of port etc or allow Allied units to transit their territory.


Chinese forces:
No restriction on Chinese forces although, obviously, you should PP for any Chinese forces you move out of China. Once you pay the PP you can move the Chinese units wherever you want.

No restriction on Allied offensives in the North Pacific. This is completely ahistorical. If you want to try to invade there then feel free to do so.


Carrier Aviation:
In this mod the Allies get Corsairs on CVs from January 1943 so that's just the way it is.

Limitations on planes IJN subs can operate. Well, this is limited by upgrade path so I don't see a problem.


Sub landings --- I don't see any valid reason for this limitation, especially where it doesn't allow UMSC raider units to conduct sub-borne landings --- something they actually DID.

Limitations on airborne units attacking multiple base on the same turn... I don't agree with this. If you want to waste your airborne units foolishly then you should be allowed to do so. No rule should stop you from being foolish, common sense should stop you from being foolish.


P.s. This mod features no CV respawns so if the Allies lose CVs then they remain lost forever. This helps keep Japan competitive in 1944-45



Come back to me with any counter-proposals you might have and we can take things from there. I do NOT have time for 3 games and won't abandon my game vs jagdfluger BUT I will happily play a game against you which pretty closely mirrors my game vs Jagdfluger.

Ps. If anyone feels any of these rules are unfair to the Allies ( except the no aerial minelaying one as that simply prevents abuse of broken game code ) then please feel free to pipe up. I don't want the Allied player feeling the have been short-changed - although since I'm giving much less restrictions than were imposed in Trollelite's game vs General Hoepner I am sure Trollelite won't find them too burdensome.

Will the glove be picked up?

Who knows? I've PMed him pointing this thread out to him though so hopefully he'll check it out. He is online as we speak checking out AARs.

I would like to see this scenario first and know which map this is based on. As limit to allies I insist these are on, or the game is not enough interesting for me. This is not out of arrogance, for I expect take jap side against u later, and expect same restriction on allies. I refuse to let B-29 against shipping, acutally I want to ban its use as naval search, either, because of the story PZB tells.

Under no circumstance should any superweapon or wonder weapon be allowed.

PT: I suggest ban these pathetic things all together.

China: You don't understand reality of chinese politic then.

Strategical bombing: Think aerial bombing could stop production all together is ridiculous. Besides, again, no victory -proof  strategy.

North pacific: Lend lease.

sub landing: I agree  para units  under brigade size could be landed by sub.

 
Applause to Nemo. I'am looking forward to this!
 
If you can hold againts Nemo... than [&o] ...but I have my doubts though since Nemo is one tough opponent.
 
Lets hope that trollelite puts his money where his mouth is.
 
..anyway, this would most definately be fun "lesson".

A good player is not good if he not promise never quit...[:D][:D]

Anyway I want to see this scenario first before make any more suggestion on HR.

Trollelite,

Sorry to say but I actually don't understand some of your replies... e.g. "North Pacific: Lend Lease" I actually don't know what you are trying to say with this.
 
 

Under no circumstance should any superweapon or wonder weapon be allowed. 

Well often I've seen bad players label something a "superweapon" because they can't come up with a counter. it isn't a superweapon, they are just bad players. Personally I'd happily see an Allied player use B-29s on naval search as I would then be able to kill quite a few of them by cranking my CAP in nearby bases up to 90%. So I think it isn't about banning weapons systems etc as it is about saying to the player "Overcome this. Unless the game code is flawed there IS a counter."
 
B-29s are excellent bombers BUT they need massive bases within range. We can predict which bases these are and so the counter to B-29s is twofold:
a) prevent them gaining those bases and
b) set up massive CAPs beyond range of their escorting fighters and attrit them over the target.

There are counters, it is up to the player to find them and those counters should be due to good play and not some deus ex machina rule.
 
 
As to the limitations for Allies:  Well if you don't want to use B-29s or other level bombers below 15,000 feet then you should feel free to not use them in order to keep things "interesting" for yourself. However I find them quite interesting enough without such an unhistorical limitation on my own play. So, feel free to keep them above 15,000 feet IF YOU want to but I won't make it a requirement.
 
 
PTs: Again, if you find it too easy to play myself and others using PTs to their fullest you should feel absolutely free to disband them into your bases and keep them there for the entire war. That doesn't require a rule, that can just be a decision you make on the basis that you don't need them to beat me.
 
 
China: Again, if your understanding of Chinese politics is superior to mine then I am more than happy for you to decide what is and isn't reasonable in terms of moving Chinese units out of China and apply that understanding to limit what you do and do not do. I will not, however, make a rule forcing you to limit your options. If you choose to only move a specified number of units out because defeating me would be too easy if you moved more units then that is, of course, entirely your choice.
 
 
Strategic bombing: Well we aren't talking about stopping ALL production. We are simply talking about stopping military production and, yes, when a factory got completely levelled by a 500 bomber raid then, yes, I do believe production was well and truly stopped for a long time.
 
 
North Pacific: I don't understand the Lend Lease comment. In any case if YOU choose to decide that this route isn't viable then that's your right. I, on the other hand, believe it was viable and, obviously, during WW2 the Americans did invade the Aleutians.
 
 
Sub Landing: Not just parachute units. All commando-type units can be landed by sub. In addition there should be no limitation on size. After all in reality what stops me landing 50 men from a Parachute Division by sub which wouldn't stop me landing 50 men from a Parachute Bn by sub? There's no realistic bases for stipulating that they must be from a unit less than Brigade size.

Once I said in my native forum that I am not against sub landing, provide he who lands people later be able to TAKE THEM BACK again. No one, not even most Japs, would agree to be assigned to some mission that only leads to death or capture... and where is your game scenario file?

lend lease means US send cargos to Soviet union via northern pacific. So allies could only attack there after soviet enter the war. Because there would be no lend lease transport along northern pacific route anymore after soviet union becomes Japs enemy, this restriction is then cancelled.

BTW here's the link to the map files and old scenario files.... You can download that and get a 99% complete view of the latest version of the scenario...
 
http://www.akdreemer.com/ahs/kelly/intro.html
 
Latest version will be done by tomorrow.... If you PM me your email address I can email it to you for perusal.

I suggest if both agree to start a new battle, one thing you should both keep in mind.
 
IF ANYTHING MAKE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, JUST SPEAK IT UP, DON'T KEEP QUITE.
 
and anyone else who reading the AAR should keep one thing in mind,
 
LET THE PLAYER DECIDE!

Chinese politic is very complex. Rule one is general Chiang not someone like hitler or stalin. He is more like some holy roman emperor, like Barbarossa.

Move chinese troops into India, this means they could accept American weapons and equipment. This is a good thing. So other warlord's troops could never be granted such chance, lest they become too strong later. Chiang however is not willingly sent his own troops, either. Though they could recieve american hardware, but this means in the same time they fall out of his direct control, either. So any chinese units sent abroad is the result of time-consuming hard bargain, not unusually under threat from both sides (chinese and americans).

Is your a2a model something like NIk mod or stock one? I read some of your aar and it seems nik mod style, however I want a confirmation.

Well, looks like our game should be delayed.
 
I understand[;)]
 
I bet on your side troll

It seems the scenario is really interesting. Is there any aar here other than your allies game?

Yeah look up some of my other AARs... I AARed at least three Japanese starts to this game. In two of those games the game finished after a month or less because of differing views of what a no holds barred game would entail.
 
As to China --- Well, as I said, if you want to limit yourself because of your view of Chinese politics then feel free. I won't make it a rule though and thus if we switch sides afterward I won't be bound by any limitations you might put on yourself.
 
A2A model is based on RHS: It is significantly less bloody than stock or Nikmod  and if you read recent reports in my most recent AAR you can see that even the worst clashes tend to stop at 50% losses with some of the intercepting fighters getting through to the bombers and actually getting kills against them as opposed to the other way round --- which is, IMO, an improvement on stock and Nikmod...

OK, would ask GH about his opinion. I want to play with u.