Nothing Up My Sleeve: Magical Moose Tricks--Bullwinkle58 vs.1EyedJacks
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:30 pm
[center]Welcome![/center]
This will be a first PBEM AAR by Bullwinkle58. All visitors welcome except 1EyedJacks. Please wipe your feet; the fridge is over there.
My esteemed Japanese opponent will be Mike AKA 1EyedJacks. Mike has previously played PBEM versus Nemo and Castor Troy (at least), and has experience with Japan. Mike and I are of similar age, both military vets, and at least one of us is devilishly handsome and quite something.
All are welcome to speak here, to offer advice (I may not take it), to kibitz and kvetch. My hope is this game, while it may not be a technical gem, will be different than most PBEM games detailed in this sub-forum. This is due to the underlying assumptions I laid out in my opponent wanted ad, and the practices Mike and I have agreed to follow. More on that below.
In this endeavor I have asked a personal advisor--RockyRoo (or as he writes it, Rocky Roo)--to stand by for ad hoc questions and strategic advice. All mistakes or poor play will be, of course, my fault. Mr. Roo is a frequent visitor to these parts, but I will leave it to him to self-identify if he wishes. It is also possible he will post in this AAR. He has assured one and all he will not read or participate in any AAR written by my opponent. Everyone, please, a round of applause.
The title of the AAR comes from a video sequence found in my old, venerable, TV show of the early 1960s. For many of you this link will play it in all its faded glory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRW7pITY ... re=related
Technical Stuff
This will be a Scenario 2 game begun under the newest beta patch, 'E' version. If new versions appear and are stable we will probably upgrade. The E variant changes aviation support in fairly significant ways, as well as squashing some bugs and adding new interface tweaks.
Settings are:
Fog of War = ON
Advanced Weather = OFF
Allied Damage Control = ON
Player Defined Upgrades = ON
Historical 1st Turn = OFF
December 7th Surprise = ON
Reliable USN Torpedoes = OFF
Realistic R&D = OFF
No Unit Withdrawals = OFF
Auto Sub OPS = OFF
Reinforcement delays = Historical
Replacements, base expansions, auto upgrades = OFF
There are NO house rules. I repeat: NO HRs. Both sides will play to the code.
On the first turn, the Allied Moose is permitted to:
1. Give any and all orders to TFs at sea.
2. Give any and all orders to CAP units in the PI, Borneo, Burma, and Malaysia.
3. Give any and all orders to any unit in China, air and LCU. Logic being China was already at war with Japan.
Now, the no HR aspect was critical to me in looking for an opponent. Together with a desire to strongly focus on VPs and auto-victory as foundational aspects of the game design, I wanted a game which would test me to the Nth degree. Additionally, as is apparent from the settings agreed to above, R&D is favorable to the Japanese. Also, no HRs means there is no requirement to pay PPs for restricted units to cross borders.
For a more complete rendition of my reasons for seeking a game with these parameters please read my lengthy Opponents Wanted post.
The AAR
Following advice from a veteran PBEM player I, who was leery of the time needed to write an AAR, consulted the recently completed game between Cuttlefish and Charbroiled, described in Cuttlefish's AAR. That format, of summary renditions of several days' turns rather than a pure war diary format, is what I am initially aiming at here. Certain aspects of the game interest me more than others and will recieve greater emphasis (go subs!), but I will try to at least give a running flow on how the no-HR and auto-vic aspects of the game are running. I suspect that many readers will be following here in order to track those features as well. (Also to see how long before I'm moose steaks on the grill. [:'(])
It's fine if readers want to read both this and any AAR 1EJ writes. I only ask you to follow forum standards on Opsec and be aware that even innocent remarks can contain nibblets of intel nourishment. I don't expect to speak a lot to future operations, but even so, please be careful.
Sniping, crap throwing, and general joshing is fine and encouraged. Don't worry about hijacking or anything similar. I'm from unmoderated Usenet and it doesn't bother me. This sort of thing can fill in gaps where I might not be posting anything as well as go toward overwhelming both Canoerebel's and Greyjoy's AAR post count, which is, after all, the whole point of this thing.
More On No-HR
Over the years, Rocky Roo and I have had off-line discussions of a philosophical nature concerning house rules and auto-vic. My views have been modified by his penetrating analysis, but my stances were untested and thus suspect. I believe that AE is a game which departs history on the first turn and never looks back, and it is thus a fool's errand to try to impose later historical "truths" on in-game behavior. The game is also an abstraction with vast swaths of missing real-life territory such as political concerns, civilian populations, complex economies and currency valuation and taxation issues, etc. To me, playing AE as a sim, and furthermore without incorporating victory points into gameplay, is destined to lead to many/most games petering out long before the end points designed into the thing. That seems to me, in a multi-year investment, sad perhaps. Win or lose, I want to finish this thing. And the game as designed offers structured ways to do that if only players attend to them. To win, the Allies must dominate and achieve auto-victory while watching the clock. To win, the Japanese must only survive. This asymmetric balance is embedded in the game design. It's an interesting balance.
House rules, as they have evolved in the culture of the game and forum community, have come to be seen as mandatory for a "good" game without any or many "gamey" player practices. There is little agreement on what this latter term means, and thus little agreement on what constitutes a "good" set of HRs. Some sets are quite short. Others displayed in opponent ads are cumbersome at best. In perhaps the worst case, some games begin with a "no HRs" stance, but one or both palyers also have an expectation that they will discuss, or perhaps even litigate, emerging HRs as need be. In many cases we've seen these games end over disagreements in this area.
I beleive that AE is a strong, stable, robust model of what it seeks to represent, at the level and degree of abstraction it seeks to portray. In only one major area, that of national borders, do I think the devs have come out and said they stopped short of their design goals. As such, I offered an opponent the option of playing with PPs required to cross as a single HR, not because I think it matters in the long run since both sides benefit, but because this is an admitted area where the code stopped short. In all other cases I believe that the practices called gamey by many do in fact ALL have in-game counters, if only the possibilty of retaliation. On the flip side, playing without HRs offers a chance for a more flowing turn process and perhaps a speedier turn around time on moves. This remains to be seen in our game.
For the record, since Mike will someday read this, he did introduce a discussion of what exaclty I was planning to do re "gamey." This engendered a productive discussion in which I tried to lay out my views on such things as single ship ammo sponges and close-to-map-edge play. Simply put, I have never done these sorts of things in three years of playing the AI, because the AI plays to the code. I consider them fiddly, and I don't do fiddly. And I consider them open to turnabout, which provides balance and removes their utility in the long run of the game. I have said to Mike several times that no HRs means, to me, no HRs. He has asked about para frags and I have told him to go ahead. I have told him I will not feel restricted from non-base, non-dot invasions. And so on. We have mutually agreed to talk if one player feels it is absolutely necessary to do so, but I don't expect this to happen. I don't plan to do crappy, sneaky stuff, and neither does he.
Pollyannish? Perhaps. But one way or another I aim to prove to myself if AE can be played and enjoyed in this manner. I expect to lose; this is my first PBEM game and I have scores of bad practices learned in three years of AI play. But if do lose I aim to do it standing on both feet, swinging away, taking no prisoners and asking no quarter.
The games have begun. My first turn was delivered to my opponent two hours ago. Even as we speak the bombs are falling. At Pearl Harbor? At Manila? We shall see.
Pull up a chair . . .
This will be a first PBEM AAR by Bullwinkle58. All visitors welcome except 1EyedJacks. Please wipe your feet; the fridge is over there.
My esteemed Japanese opponent will be Mike AKA 1EyedJacks. Mike has previously played PBEM versus Nemo and Castor Troy (at least), and has experience with Japan. Mike and I are of similar age, both military vets, and at least one of us is devilishly handsome and quite something.
All are welcome to speak here, to offer advice (I may not take it), to kibitz and kvetch. My hope is this game, while it may not be a technical gem, will be different than most PBEM games detailed in this sub-forum. This is due to the underlying assumptions I laid out in my opponent wanted ad, and the practices Mike and I have agreed to follow. More on that below.
In this endeavor I have asked a personal advisor--RockyRoo (or as he writes it, Rocky Roo)--to stand by for ad hoc questions and strategic advice. All mistakes or poor play will be, of course, my fault. Mr. Roo is a frequent visitor to these parts, but I will leave it to him to self-identify if he wishes. It is also possible he will post in this AAR. He has assured one and all he will not read or participate in any AAR written by my opponent. Everyone, please, a round of applause.
The title of the AAR comes from a video sequence found in my old, venerable, TV show of the early 1960s. For many of you this link will play it in all its faded glory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRW7pITY ... re=related
Technical Stuff
This will be a Scenario 2 game begun under the newest beta patch, 'E' version. If new versions appear and are stable we will probably upgrade. The E variant changes aviation support in fairly significant ways, as well as squashing some bugs and adding new interface tweaks.
Settings are:
Fog of War = ON
Advanced Weather = OFF
Allied Damage Control = ON
Player Defined Upgrades = ON
Historical 1st Turn = OFF
December 7th Surprise = ON
Reliable USN Torpedoes = OFF
Realistic R&D = OFF
No Unit Withdrawals = OFF
Auto Sub OPS = OFF
Reinforcement delays = Historical
Replacements, base expansions, auto upgrades = OFF
There are NO house rules. I repeat: NO HRs. Both sides will play to the code.
On the first turn, the Allied Moose is permitted to:
1. Give any and all orders to TFs at sea.
2. Give any and all orders to CAP units in the PI, Borneo, Burma, and Malaysia.
3. Give any and all orders to any unit in China, air and LCU. Logic being China was already at war with Japan.
Now, the no HR aspect was critical to me in looking for an opponent. Together with a desire to strongly focus on VPs and auto-victory as foundational aspects of the game design, I wanted a game which would test me to the Nth degree. Additionally, as is apparent from the settings agreed to above, R&D is favorable to the Japanese. Also, no HRs means there is no requirement to pay PPs for restricted units to cross borders.
For a more complete rendition of my reasons for seeking a game with these parameters please read my lengthy Opponents Wanted post.
The AAR
Following advice from a veteran PBEM player I, who was leery of the time needed to write an AAR, consulted the recently completed game between Cuttlefish and Charbroiled, described in Cuttlefish's AAR. That format, of summary renditions of several days' turns rather than a pure war diary format, is what I am initially aiming at here. Certain aspects of the game interest me more than others and will recieve greater emphasis (go subs!), but I will try to at least give a running flow on how the no-HR and auto-vic aspects of the game are running. I suspect that many readers will be following here in order to track those features as well. (Also to see how long before I'm moose steaks on the grill. [:'(])
It's fine if readers want to read both this and any AAR 1EJ writes. I only ask you to follow forum standards on Opsec and be aware that even innocent remarks can contain nibblets of intel nourishment. I don't expect to speak a lot to future operations, but even so, please be careful.
Sniping, crap throwing, and general joshing is fine and encouraged. Don't worry about hijacking or anything similar. I'm from unmoderated Usenet and it doesn't bother me. This sort of thing can fill in gaps where I might not be posting anything as well as go toward overwhelming both Canoerebel's and Greyjoy's AAR post count, which is, after all, the whole point of this thing.
More On No-HR
Over the years, Rocky Roo and I have had off-line discussions of a philosophical nature concerning house rules and auto-vic. My views have been modified by his penetrating analysis, but my stances were untested and thus suspect. I believe that AE is a game which departs history on the first turn and never looks back, and it is thus a fool's errand to try to impose later historical "truths" on in-game behavior. The game is also an abstraction with vast swaths of missing real-life territory such as political concerns, civilian populations, complex economies and currency valuation and taxation issues, etc. To me, playing AE as a sim, and furthermore without incorporating victory points into gameplay, is destined to lead to many/most games petering out long before the end points designed into the thing. That seems to me, in a multi-year investment, sad perhaps. Win or lose, I want to finish this thing. And the game as designed offers structured ways to do that if only players attend to them. To win, the Allies must dominate and achieve auto-victory while watching the clock. To win, the Japanese must only survive. This asymmetric balance is embedded in the game design. It's an interesting balance.
House rules, as they have evolved in the culture of the game and forum community, have come to be seen as mandatory for a "good" game without any or many "gamey" player practices. There is little agreement on what this latter term means, and thus little agreement on what constitutes a "good" set of HRs. Some sets are quite short. Others displayed in opponent ads are cumbersome at best. In perhaps the worst case, some games begin with a "no HRs" stance, but one or both palyers also have an expectation that they will discuss, or perhaps even litigate, emerging HRs as need be. In many cases we've seen these games end over disagreements in this area.
I beleive that AE is a strong, stable, robust model of what it seeks to represent, at the level and degree of abstraction it seeks to portray. In only one major area, that of national borders, do I think the devs have come out and said they stopped short of their design goals. As such, I offered an opponent the option of playing with PPs required to cross as a single HR, not because I think it matters in the long run since both sides benefit, but because this is an admitted area where the code stopped short. In all other cases I believe that the practices called gamey by many do in fact ALL have in-game counters, if only the possibilty of retaliation. On the flip side, playing without HRs offers a chance for a more flowing turn process and perhaps a speedier turn around time on moves. This remains to be seen in our game.
For the record, since Mike will someday read this, he did introduce a discussion of what exaclty I was planning to do re "gamey." This engendered a productive discussion in which I tried to lay out my views on such things as single ship ammo sponges and close-to-map-edge play. Simply put, I have never done these sorts of things in three years of playing the AI, because the AI plays to the code. I consider them fiddly, and I don't do fiddly. And I consider them open to turnabout, which provides balance and removes their utility in the long run of the game. I have said to Mike several times that no HRs means, to me, no HRs. He has asked about para frags and I have told him to go ahead. I have told him I will not feel restricted from non-base, non-dot invasions. And so on. We have mutually agreed to talk if one player feels it is absolutely necessary to do so, but I don't expect this to happen. I don't plan to do crappy, sneaky stuff, and neither does he.
Pollyannish? Perhaps. But one way or another I aim to prove to myself if AE can be played and enjoyed in this manner. I expect to lose; this is my first PBEM game and I have scores of bad practices learned in three years of AI play. But if do lose I aim to do it standing on both feet, swinging away, taking no prisoners and asking no quarter.
The games have begun. My first turn was delivered to my opponent two hours ago. Even as we speak the bombs are falling. At Pearl Harbor? At Manila? We shall see.
Pull up a chair . . .
