Matrix Games Forums

Hello everyone,

Since I am just beginning to play WITP PBEM, I have heard about avoiding gamey situtations. Is there a list of what is gamey, I understand that there is a range of interputation, but your opinions are appreciated. Being new I would rather avoid the early mistakes.

Thanks
Stldiver

That depends on those involved. What is gamey to one is not to another. It is a good rule to se the rules beforehand.

Things that are seen as gamey depend of the players, but most have banned night bombings (except on city attack).

Also there was a bug that minelaying attacks weren't intercepted by CAP, I don't know if that has been corrected by the last patches, but if this is not the case, many players didn't use this mission by day.

Overstacking an airfield may also be forbidden by a home rule.

The worst exploit I know of the game mechanisms is to drop 50 paratroops on a base helf by 100 000 men, while 100 000 other men in a nearby enemy base are defeated and should retreat. The para will be vaporized in the combat phase but their presence will be enough to cut the retreat path of the other huge army and all will surrender.

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
Also there was a bug that minelaying attacks weren't intercepted by CAP, I don't know if that has been corrected by the last patches, but if this is not the case, many players didn't use this mission by day.

There is disagreement about whether this is a bug or not. AFAIK no one has yet presented any evidence that aircraft minelaying missions ever were intercepted.

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.

USN radar picket ships at Okinawa.

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.

USN radar picket ships at Okinawa.

As you can see stldiver, most 'gamey' exploits are open to interpretation. Using AKs as pickets and bait to draw LBA attacks to many here is 'gamey'. But using TFs of 2x USN DDs as radar picket ships shouldn't be as this was done IRL.

PDUs (Player Defined Upgrades for air units) needs a house rule to avoid the possible 'gamey' action of an Allied player changing all 2e bombers to 4e.

Landing recce forces of a few squads by sub to gain intel on an enemy base is not liked by many players.

Massed hordes of PT boats is another tactic that some frown upon.

Just set the house rules with your opponent before you start a PBEM

You know, folks, you might as well be playing "whack a mole" as saying "just set your house rules before you play."

You cannot anticipate everything your opponent may do that you might find objectionable as "gamey." If this game had been designed properly, every d@mned "gamey" technique would be acceptable. Unfortunately, there is so much "slop" that it is almost impossible to play on friendly terms when one player or the other does something "unusual" that succeeds. I have even seen people get POed because they try something "unusual" and it fails, but they think it should have worked, showing that the game is screwed up.

I recently had an Allied player quit on me because I captured Pearl Harbor in January 1942. He was angry because he didn't think it was possible and thought it showed how screwed up the game was. I was happy because I didn't know it was possible and think it shows how screwed up the game is.

I done sayed it befo', and I's gwine sayed it agin: a game is supposed to present you with a situation in which you immerse yourself and deal with the conditions that exist. This game kinda tosses you into someplace where nobody quite knows what will happen, let alone why it happens or how it happens.

So, if some enterprising soul says, "You know, I think the northern route through Anchorage and Seattle to San Francisco looks promising," who's to say it's "gamey" when he undertakes an offensive plan using that as its primary axis of advance? Historically, it would have been a laughable failure. In WitP, it can work - I've seen it work...

House rules are an ON/OFF toggle just like everything else on the game options screen. If both players want a historical style of play then some house rules are probably necessary.

For myself I'm happy to play an 'open' game. If my opponent wanted to take PH or India then go for it. It's up to me to defend against that possibility. As you say, just because something wasn't done IRL life, doesn't mean that it can't be attempted.

I wouldn't knowingly use an exploit of the game mechanics/design, but if it was used on me then I'll return the favour. (by this for example the use of 1 para squad to stop - reset to zero - the movement of a stack of LCUs).

Reminds me of an old proverb - Alls fair in love and war [:D]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
Also there was a bug that minelaying attacks weren't intercepted by CAP, I don't know if that has been corrected by the last patches, but if this is not the case, many players didn't use this mission by day.

There is disagreement about whether this is a bug or not. AFAIK no one has yet presented any evidence that aircraft minelaying missions ever were intercepted.

Maybe because minelaying missions were never flown in daylight ? In Europe German nightfighters shot down hundred of RAF bombers flying minelaying missions, and hundred more were shot down by AA of ships in the minelaying areas. Ok Japanese nightfighters suck but at least they should have the same probability of intercepting a night minelaying raid than a night bombing raid.

I also think that minelaying is possible in WITP from 30k feet, while IRL AC flew at some thousand feet to have a chance to set the mine near the desired place.

That reminds me of another gamey thing: setting kamikazes, FB, torpedo planes and divebombers at their max alt so they will fly over the CAP and not be intercepted until they attack between 100 and 2000 feet.

As for picket ships, in WITP only 1 or 2 units will attack them, not the whole CV air force as in UV, so I don't see it as a gamey tactic, it was done IRL (a picket boat saw the Doolittle CV TF for example).

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.

That was the role of picket destroyers. They tended to attract the kamikazis.

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
As for picket ships, in WITP only 1 or 2 units will attack them, not the whole CV air force as in UV, so I don't see it as a gamey tactic, it was done IRL (a picket boat saw the Doolittle CV TF for example).

We are going to disagree. IRL this picked boat which saw Doolittle CV TF wasn't decisive - IIRC Japanese were still suprised and didn't realised that bombers comes from CVs.

WiTP mechanics leaves no options for that. You will know actual strength of enemy, even which CVs (from Combat screen - VF-2 bombing..) are involved in the battle.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: pauk

most important thing is that you ask your opponent before the match if he intend to do things which you consider gamey... this would prevent unpleasant situations once when PBEM starts.

most gamey thing for me:

- picket ships (kamikazes) which are perfect satellite warning system against enemy CVs... when CV TF spot single ship it will often launch all acs against poor MSW, PC or transport.

That was the role of picket destroyers. They tended to attract the kamikazis.

Dont think we are understand each other. I put kamikazes in the brackets because i meant that these picket ships are kamikazes - they spot enemy CV TF and, bye, bye...

WiTP is game on strategical level, not tactical....

Gamey depends. To some players it is the thing that you do that they didn't expect. If you come up with an unusual tactic they will cry foul.

However, it is good to find someone who has roughly the same desire for historical play. My PBEM partner and I like fairly historical play, but do allow some latitude for creative tactics. It's been a thoroughly enjoyable game.

You need to aggree on some house rules for...

China. China can be rolled by "simply" stacking all Japanese Divisions into mega-LCU-KB and stomping the Chinese bases in detail. It works, up until Chungking. I've never seen a well-defended Chungking fall. Still, you can clobber china by July. Then all those IJA Divisions are free to invade INdia or Oz (even if all you did was pin-down Chungking). Also, you can speed the process up by bombing the resouces in China (starves their units even faster). But what would have been the historical point of invading China in the first place then (and Allies can't do much to stop it). On the flip side, the allies can (briefly) stack 250+ 4e bombers in Chungking, and blow the snot out of every Japanese strat resource in about 2 weeks (or until the supplies run out, which happens quite quickly).
In my case:
a. We have either agreed to a truce where cities are no longer changing hands. Or we have "militarized zone", where we have agreed that certain can be attacked, and others not.
b. No 4e bombers in China. I realize this isn't historical. But 4e bombers can utterly wipe out japans production in 1942, and this was simply part of our truce terms.
c. No strat bombing from any Chinese city, and no bombing of Chinese resources. Killing chinese resoureces the whole army littearlly starves to death. And no strat bombing from Chinese cities (again, very easily can cripple Japan), just means I need to secure bases in SEAsia or Malaya to reach that far.

Russia. Russian can't even move her units until Japan attacks her. This allows Japan to mass her armies, and attack Russia and destory them in detail. Similar to China, except worse, because Russia can't even move until IJA crosses the border.
a. Some players activiate Russia immediately on war start by sending small bombing mission to activate them. Russian can them move units freely to set up a defense.
b. Give Russia a 30-day "war warning" and then activate them as above, so that opponent can move units into realistic defenses.

4e bombers. I love 'em. But especially because the replacement rates (and with PDUs), seem fairly high, you can get into a situation where all the Allied bombers are converted into LB-30s and B-17s. My personal house rules for 4e bombers in one of my games...

a. Only 16x plane squadrons and 48x plane groups may be converted into 4e bombers. This actually works out to the exact same number of available 4e bombers in stock (altho in different dispositions). Limiting it to 16-48 is simply easier to remember. Limiting only starting 2e bombers to 2e bombers and 4e to 4e (another common rule), actually gives you LESS 4e bombers than stock, but it's also easy to remember.
b. I limit to only 2-48x groups of LB-30s. The LB-30 rate is very high, and before long everything will convertto them if not constrained. In limiting LB-30s, I've got a "reasonable" number of 4e bombers in May. I am just now able to fill out my avaible squadrons (same as stock) with 4e bombers. Otherwise, you could fill everything out in about March by supplimenting with LB-30s.
c. For 1942 at least, I'm limited to no more than 48x plane group, or 3-16x plane squadrons of 4e bombers at a base. This limits the ability to lanch the mega strikes. 2e bombers are no limit tho. 250x 2e bombers will certainly do a job on a base. But 250x 4e bombers will simply vaporize it.

Pilot Pools I'm not sure, but I think some folks are reporting issues with the named pilot pools. I don't use them anyway (you can convert patrol pilots to fighter pilots, rather different skill set). But it's something you'll want to consider.

No invasions except at base or dot hexes. LCUs do not suffer disablements for lack of prep, like they do if they land at a base. Basically, you can land anywhere -BUT- a base hex, without penalty. That rather defeats the intent I believe.

Lots of squawking about PTs I've never seen them all that effective. But I usually only run them in TFs of 4 - 6. Some folks put 25 in a TF, and that tends to be very deadly. Frankly, I don't know if 4x6 is any better or worse than 25. Again, discuss with your opponent.

Cadres Some folks don't like evacing cadres (just a tiny fragment via sub). This means when the parent is destroyed, the fragment -usually- will rebuild to the whole unit. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, since formations were sometimes rebuilt historically, and there are lots of formations missing anyway. It works for both sides.

Cadre #2Also dropping a cadre to block the retreat of a division is a bit gamey (cadre normally equals about 2 - 3 squads), somehow I don't think a real division would care if they were "cut off" by 30 men, but the computer has this habit of forcing a surrender because of "blocked retreat paths".

Dividing/Re-Divinding Divisions in combat When you divide a division, it does NOT carry over the disruption fatigue of the parent, into the regiments. So you have a tired division, and you can divide it into Rgts and they're suddenly rested.

CAP levels Some folks constrain CAP limits to 50%. While I have certainly seen "uber-CAP" slaughter strikes, I personally don't think it's necessary. To each his own.

Probably other stuff.

-F-

I would agree that "gamey" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. I would hope that any opponent of mine would not be restricted by what was done "historically" by the sides since that teaches nothing about "possibilities".

We know that both sides, initially, were very conservative in their apporaches to the war.[8D] The Japanese were concerned about seizing and maintianing their resources though a maticulas apporach [i.e., seize Malaya first then Burma. Sumatra, Java and Borneo, etc.] The USN was a conservation of resource [because of the war in Eurpoe] and fighting a defensive battle.

Is it "gamey" to invade Hawaii within the first months of the war? Yes, if you think it was not the historically thinking at the time. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities". Is it "gamey" to bring the entire Chinese Army into Burma to stop an IJA drive to cut-off the Burma Road? Yes, if you think it was historical folly or they could not have supplied the area to prevent capture[historically true]. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities".

Is it "gamey" to use the rules in a "creative manner"? Yes, if it's your ox being gored. No, if it's not your ox being gored. [X(]

Look guys - we all look for rules to use to our advantage [on a small scale] - we want to win, but remember that old legal statement quid pro quo because your opponent will take note.[:(]

All in all, communication, preferrably as much beforehand as possible, is key. Just keep an open dialog. You're talking starting a game that potentially last years (I have two games, almost 2 years old).

But you won't have thought of everthing. Things -will- come up, that push your patience. There will be patches that come along that afftect game-play, perhaps dramatically. Again, you need to talk it out, to agree how to handle the new situation.

Communication.
-F-

Feinder hits it on the head. You have to think of your opponant as a companion in your game and not someone to beat on. If he is not having fun then he is likley to quit and now no one is happy.

Winning is nice but if it is done in such a fashion that the other guy feels like he is getting a raw deal by abusing the system why should he keep playing?

Grunt also makes a good point. Be prepared to institute in-game rules that benifit the other guy if you want some for yourself.

All in all, play the game like an adult who is in it for the sport and not a 4 year old who just wants to win at all costs.

The solution I have proposed many times is to play 2 games (one as each side). This way any gamey moves can be used by both sides and cancel out.

RUPD3658;
You and Feinder hit it. the game needs to fun for all parties. We play it for enjoyment after all. If you are playing with the right people, you can lose and still have a blast.
Bruce

Look in the After Action Reports section of this forum and the guys usually list their house rules in the beginning. Lots of good ideas there. Gary Childress and his opponent have some good rules, in my opinion.