RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 3:21:18 AM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

With your opponent's concurrence, I say give it a try and see what happens if you would like. This is one thing I like about this game, the variability.

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 31

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 3:35:23 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

Actually, I have decided to just not start any more games. I am tired of asking for opinions and being labeled as something I am not.

_____________________________

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 32

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 3:43:58 AM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

"air war in Burma - what war? - i haven't seen any long both -sides exhausting war in Burma in any AAR
always allied heavies mauling Japan - 1 airfield out per week - only this - where are realism expecting allied fanboys ??? "

The thing about Burma is a simple matter of base numbers - the Allies have nearly 10 potential bases from which to pummel any Japanese advance into Burma. The Japanese have Rangoon and Mandalay.

There is a similar situation in PNG and the Bismarks - but in reverse. The Allies have PM and the Japanese have a half dozen potentially good air base from which they can pummel PM. (Many Japanese players ignore this and try to fight with only Rabaul against PM.)

Essentially, anywhere in the Game where one side can set up a half dozen level 4 or greater air bases within a few hexes of each other will be a death trap for the opposing side to try to move into. The thing about most players is that they don't bother setting up these "killing zones".

The answer to the Mandalay problem for the Japanese is an early invasion of the Bay of Bengal - grab those four bases and you've broken the Allied killing ground.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 33

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 9:46:11 AM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'd point out that it is eminently possible to take China in 6 months in the stock game without any strategic bombing campaign so perhaps the strategic bombing helped things but I doubt it was decisive.

hm.... i would say that China could be taken in 6 months if Allied opponent make big mistake.

Lot's of people forgot one fact: Allies can make lots of mistakes in the game but none is allowed in China

(if Allied player know how to play China than, IMHO, it is impossible to take China).

Same goes for Japanese player in the China (and all other theatres

). I've seen quite a lot AARs where Japanese were on strategical redeployment (read: steamrolled by Chinese) in 1942. I believe that Oleg shows that, General Hoepner against Hawker and the last but not the least String teaches me a lesson too in the China

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 34

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 9:51:42 AM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I am wondering what people think of a Japanese player bombing the chinese HI, Resources, and/or oil centers? Is it a gamey thing or is it not? It is just inspired playing? I am holding my opinion until after a few resposnses. Thank you for the input.

IMO - Sending 200 Japanese bombers escorted by 100 Zeros in early 1942 to turn Changsha, etc. into large craters is no more gamey than sending 200 B-24s escorted by 100 Corsairs to turn Mandalay, etc. into large craters in early 1943...

What it comes down to is that Players who want to game the system must remember not to whine when the system is gamed back at them later on...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Greetings David, we shouldn't forget one thing: PDU!

PDU is candyland and have nothing to do with history (btw, Allies doesn't have to wait for 1943 to do it - they can do earlier). I would not be able to have 200 bombers for offensive in the China without PDU

So, i'm totally aware that i would be faced with situatins like you've described in your post, but i'm not going to restrict myself to historical play and when it comes to Allies to show me a stick (a big one

) start to crying faul...

_____________________________

(in reply to ADavidB)

Post #: 35

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 12:50:12 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

My main issue with Bombing Chinese resources is the fact that with such a high supply consumption level it is to easy to starve out Chinese ground forces.

And to easy to supply Japanese forces in the hinterland.

I would almost prefer if they striped all railways out of China its just to easy to conquer.

(p.s. I believe that Japanese to Allied supoply ratio is out of whack as well but its just more apparent in China)

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 36

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 1:10:44 PM

jeffs

Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline

I think a lot of it comes down to what kind of game people want to play.
Basically, how much time do people want to put into China. I have 2 games going of which one there is an outright ceasefire. Also the Japanese player has said no attack on Russia.

I am not saying it is right, just that it should be discussed. For example, a fair comprimise might be no Japan attacks on cities in return for no US 4e bombers attacks from China.

But it is hard to say something is overly gamey if you have not discussed it.

For example, if you have PDU, but do not allow 2E to 4E, much of the issue is resolved. Of course it probably does mean B-25J hell at shorter ranges.

Clearly the stock game favors Japan in China, while CHS/Nik neutralize the advantage to a certain degree.

ADavid brings up a great point...Anytime one side has a 1 or 2 bases opposed by a batch of bases, they are cruising for a bruising.

_____________________________

To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 37

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 2:34:46 PM

ADavidB

Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I am wondering what people think of a Japanese player bombing the chinese HI, Resources, and/or oil centers? Is it a gamey thing or is it not? It is just inspired playing? I am holding my opinion until after a few resposnses. Thank you for the input.

IMO - Sending 200 Japanese bombers escorted by 100 Zeros in early 1942 to turn Changsha, etc. into large craters is no more gamey than sending 200 B-24s escorted by 100 Corsairs to turn Mandalay, etc. into large craters in early 1943...

What it comes down to is that Players who want to game the system must remember not to whine when the system is gamed back at them later on...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Greetings David, we shouldn't forget one thing: PDU!

PDU is candyland and have nothing to do with history (btw, Allies doesn't have to wait for 1943 to do it - they can do earlier). I would not be able to have 200 bombers for offensive in the China without PDU

So, i'm totally aware that i would be faced with situatins like you've described in your post, but i'm not going to restrict myself to historical play and when it comes to Allies to show me a stick (a big one) start to crying faul...

Both sides have the capability to bring together 200+ bombers in early 1942 in a stock game without PDU; and that's without using naval air. The advantage that the Japanese side has in early 1942 is that they have Zeros with good pilots available to escort their LBA.

The Allied player only has P-40Bs in limited numbers during the same time frame to provide long range escort. (Don't bring up Buffalos or the other garbage planes that the Brits and Dutch have - they are worthless.) In theory, an Allied player could fly all P-40Bs together in early 1942 and come up with something between 75 and 100 of them in one place, but with a replacement rate of 10 per month they can't be used for any extended period of time in combat without being depleted. What's the replacement rate per month of Zeros during the first half of 1942? It's probably something like ten times that of the P-40Bs. And without escorts bombers are quite vulnerable in the post-v1.50 versions of the game.

What PDU does is to allow the Japanese player to bring very large quantities of much better fighters into play much earlier in the Game. Sure, the Allied player gets to replace more garbage bombers with better bombers, but the Allied player still doesn't get better long range fighters until late 1942 and doesn't get really dangerous mid-range fighters until early 1943. So unless the Japanese player is silly enough to get involved in a situation where there is a local advantage in total number of air bases in the Allied player's favor, even with PDU an Allied player is at a disadvantage until early 1943.

So, in the end, is it "gamey" to use the resources that you have on hand to destroy the enemy's ability to fight? In my opinion, no, and that holds for both sides. Do I believe that some of the conditions and set-ups in the Game are poorly thought out and badly implemented? Yes, particularly in terms of land combat and rail movement.

Take care -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 38

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 2:59:26 PM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

only one question to you
how many games proved Japan behaving better than RL in AAR in 44 and 45
there are few of them to check but how many games managed to keep marianes in 44 ( it would be an example for me as well as keeping Singapore in late 44)
how many times end of 43 Japan ends retreating to indochina
i still think that majority of games faces allies behaving better than RL - they usually grab more in 44 and 45 than in RL - so why do we discuss it?

_____________________________

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 39

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 3:04:27 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

only one question to you
how many games proved Japan behaving better than RL in AAR in 44 and 45
there are few of them to check but how many games managed to keep marianes in 44 ( it would be an example for me as well as keeping Singapore in late 44)
how many times end of 43 Japan ends retreating to indochina
i still think that majority of games faces allies behaving better than RL - they usually grab more in 44 and 45 than in RL - so why do we discuss it?

You're right, why do we discuss anything? We should all just keep quiet and play the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 40

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 6:49:19 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

I have read in quite a number of places that as a nation Japan was wearying of the war in China by 1941. Though the IJA might daily report glorious victories over the Chinese, the amount of territory actually controlled was determined at any given moment by the locations of each Japanese soldier. Doing a little research I came across the figure of 186,000 Japanese military dead lost in China between 1937-41. Even with such a exaggerated sense of fatalism as Japan and its military possessed in the 1930s and 40s that is not an insignificant figure and would undoubtably at least double to reflect the seriously wounded in the total casualties.

Japan sought ultimately to conquer China or at least make a peace with China which allowed it to maintain its hold on the resources and markets it had conquered there. Much like Hitler turning to conquer Russia as an indirect way of bringing about a peace with the British the Japanese sought a quick and victorious war against the US/Allies so as to force China to make such a peace as they desired.

The present game allows the Japanese too much operational latitude for China. By the time the game begins they'd already had 4 years to bomb Chinese industry and resources with the whole of their air forces and had neither forced the Chinese to the peace table nor strangled the ability of the Chinese to keep an "Army" in the field to oppose them. That "Army" wasn't much of an Army but IMHO the HI, resources, and oil centers in the game are mostly abstractions to allow the Chinese units to function within the same supply system as every other nation's function. (that is without creating a more realistic but totally different supply system for the Chinese). Thus "bombing China into submission" or "bombing them back in to the stone age" was not, realistically, an option for the Japanese.

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 41

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 7:24:24 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.

Anyone else besides me remember this?

Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 42

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 8:40:34 PM

33Vyper

Posts: 542
Joined: 10/20/2004
From: New Westminster BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.

Anyone else besides me remember this?
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

I do recall this.....I think the bottom line answer here is that there is not solution within the current model that will fix the problem. Each user must make a decision for themseleves as to how to deal with this matter....hence 'house rules'.

Find someone that agrees with your interpretation of how the war should be fought and play with them. I for one do not generally consider it gamey....however it would not preclude me from playing with someone who does.

To me gamey is staying around PH after turn one to sink every single ship at dock and to pound the hell out of the shipyards. Again....'house rule'.

Let's just face it...most of us know the pacific war inside and out...we know the ships their capabilities...the land and air units. Outside of forcing each side to make historical moves there is no way to ensure that the 'game' aspect will not show up.

Well that is just me 2 1/2 cents

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 43

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 8:49:42 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

It's good to remember that this game is not an historical representation of the Pacific War.

Sometimes it's hard to remember this when you think you're getting gamed.

"Be excellent to each other".
This goes out the window when design flaws are interpreted as plausible, but not historic, strategies.

My 2 cents.

_____________________________

(in reply to 33Vyper)

Post #: 44

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 9:59:55 PM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.

Anyone else besides me remember this?
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

I wasn't active on the boards then, but this answer makes no sense to me.

A city can be set to generate supply, and several of the cities already do so. If your ony goal is to give China an edge (or more accurately blunt the Japanese edge), this would seem to be a better way to give China supply for several reasons:
- Can't bomb these supply generators
- If Japan captures them, they are supposed to stop producing.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 45

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/4/2006 10:26:51 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

I didn't design the game.

This was the designer's fix.
They didn't envision players doing what was actually never done.
That was the premise behind quite a few of their design decisions.

This was all done to prop up the weak logistics portion of the game.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 6/5/2006 12:17:51 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 46

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/5/2006 2:43:17 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

My take is that it's gamey. It's an individual preference thing for sure but my theory is that it would be impossible for Japan to starve China TOTALLY. Far too many rice paddies to bomb

As such in my game bombing Chinese industry is a no no

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 47

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/5/2006 10:40:46 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.

Anyone else besides me remember this?
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

I wasn't active on the boards then, but this answer makes no sense to me.

A city can be set to generate supply, and several of the cities already do so. If your ony goal is to give China an edge (or more accurately blunt the Japanese edge), this would seem to be a better way to give China supply for several reasons:
- Can't bomb these supply generators
- If Japan captures them, they are supposed to stop producing.

My guess is that they didn't do that because they didn't add the code for non-HI supply sources until after they had "done" China and then didn't take the time to go back and re-do it.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 48

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 3:38:31 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

I bomb those cities that I need to to further the collapse of China. Simply bombing everything defeats the purpose of invading in the first place.

Changsha and Yenan I contest early with the intention of capturing as much intact as possible.

Lunchow and Sian I intend to take intact and thus leave alone.

Kunming and Wuhan are in the bombsights from day 1. This weakens the supply chain and allows the ablove listed cities to be taken easier.

Chungking and Chengtu get bombed once I am in range. Their 300/day organic supply make them impossible to totally neutralize.

I also use paratroops and an advance into Burma to cut the Burma road ASAP.

The Allied ability to turn the skies of Burma dark with 4E bombers supplies by limitless supply from Karachi balances this out.

As with all things in the game it is best to discuss upfront with your opponant what you plan on doing and if they are OK with it. True gameyness is planning on doing something that exploits the system without first asking your opponant if he is OK with it or asking for house rules that only help your side. In my game with KDonovan I agreed to not sail past Singapore until it was captured and that no units could enter/exit China without changing command. Without these I would have taken Malaya in 2 weeks and India shortly thereafter. I also agreed not to land in Karachi and cut off his reinforcements.

The fits I am giving him in Chaina he is paying me back elsewhere with mines (12 ships sunk by March 42), 4E bombers, and well timed surface actions. This what makes the game a challange and fun.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 49

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 4:56:59 PM

Hoplosternum

Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline

It also depends on what the IJ player is going to do if he captures China. He might just hold it for the points that just makes an allied win harder. But we don't really know how hard it is to get the points in the full game yet to see what effect this would have.

If however he is going to use those divisions to either overwhelm India or Russia afterwards then this is going to have a big impact on the game.

Is it worth a house rule? Probably not. But then I have not seen China wiped out in any of my games so far. I've got closest in my game as Japan

I have not used this strategy and only one of my opponents has used it on me (and then he started very late).

It is pretty much unstoppable though. I usually keep all or most of the AVG in China. And I added some UK squadrons when one of my opponent started bombing my resources. But after the SRA is secured the Japanese can put a lot of bombers and fighters in to China. And he can hit you where you aint.

Once damaged you cannot afford any repair. He can just chip away and change bases to avoid the AVG (if he does not simply overwhelm it). The allies lack the air support to quickly transfer large numbers of fighters to the base under attack even if they can gather the numbers and quality of the Japanese attackers. Shorter allied ranges, even of the much vaunted P40B, means a LCAP strategy is largely ineffective.

If you think the fall of China is likely to be exploited then you might want to consider a house rule. China has supply problems even with the resorces, never mind without them.

< Message edited by Hoplosternum -- 6/6/2006 4:58:13 PM >

_____________________________

Allies vs Belphegor Jul 43 2.5:2.5 in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 50

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 4:59:18 PM

jeffs

Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline

RUDP hit the nail on the head

As with all things in the game it is best to discuss upfront with your opponant what you plan on doing and if they are OK with it. True gameyness is planning on doing something that exploits the system without first asking your opponant if he is OK with it or asking for house rules that only help your side.

In a game this complicated, there will be rules that distort history/historical results. Some of these just mean that historically they were not done, but were possible...

Whether or not such things should be allowed really depends on the players. Things should be discussed within a framework and if players agree then it should be open. For example, in the AAR, one of the more extreme games is with Nemo. They have an extremely open game that Nemo exploited to the max. Many people were rather vociferous in their disapproval of such tactics. That said, his opponent said outright he is enjoying the game immensely and as he agreed to it, he has no problem with it. While I would not play a game with such rules, it is not my call. What 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own rooms and PCs is not my business!

That said, the problem is when a certain tactic that is ahistorical is done without the discussion....So discuss beforehand (it is harder for newbies as many do not understand various tactics). But it is gamey only if it really has not been discussed (let`s face it, sub invasions if not specifically ALLOWED are sleazy) ....

But if 2 people agree, I think that should end it....

As for me, I would think a deal where no HI destruction for no 4e bombers is a fair deal. But hey, that is just me....

_____________________________

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 51

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:01:38 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, While our newer forum members might think Matrix made after release excuses for China and game exploits those of us who have been around know better.
Long before game was released while testing I posted AAR and suggested limits (or house rules) that we were using as game deveolped and was tested.

From 7-25-2001 (3 years before game was released. ) addressing the problem of using a model for air/naval combat and small scale (relative)land combat to fight the massive battle resulting from attempting to fight in China.

"I know you can't make everyone happy. I wish that people would remember the game is called Pacific War not China War or 'The Great India Invasion game."

For more then a year before release AAR from game were posted on forums. None of them contained bombing of Chinese resource and when asked the answer was always "do not bomb Chinese resource centers if you wish to bomb Chinese supply bomb the airfields"

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

when some of these limitations were acknowledged before release one wise poster responded "Japanese players will be unable to restrain themselves"

Mike Scholl even pointed out that the exploits would become strategy.
They were both correct however before the game was released starting in late 2002 persons following development were made aware of the design intent and the results posted in AAR were always produced by testers who publicly tested the intent and not the exploits.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 52

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:09:14 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 53

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:20:40 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 54

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:25:01 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, From 2003 (a year before release)
We're going to get hammered..., because a lot of players
WANT Japan to be a "super power" in 1941 so they can "win" the War

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 55

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:32:06 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

Chess? Checkers? a bit abstract for wargames, i'll admit...

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 56

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:41:32 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

Chess? Checkers? a bit abstract for wargames, i'll admit...

Hi, computer versions of Chess do have exploits. Mostly concerning the AI and closed positions that exist for many moves. They are refered to as "computer moves" ( A move a human employs against a computer that he would not use against another human)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 57

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:45:37 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

Chess? Checkers? a bit abstract for wargames, i'll admit...

Hi, computer versions of Chess do have exploits. Mostly concerning the AI and closed positions that exist for many moves. They are refered to as "computer moves" ( A move a human employs against a computer that he would not use against another human)

Try it against Deep Blue...

i was thinking we were speaking of human vs. human play. Lots of exploits against the AI in this game, but they aren't really worth discussing.

EDIT: Interesting about the computer moves, though...

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 6/6/2006 5:52:23 PM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 58

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:52:09 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, In "Blitz" games Deep Blue does very well even against top human Grand masters. In games where normal time controls (40 moves in 120 minutes) are used Kasparov has in fact used a number of "computer" moves and won. (He has never lost a game against Deep Blue in normal time control) A few of the games are quite amusing once Deep Blue gets confused.

There are exploits against humans as well but they are considered bad forum to employ.
a few examples

Fisher-Petrosian Bobby kept whisting the "col Bogie march" during Tigrans moves. Tigran countered by turning off his hearing aid and so Bobby resorted to kicking him under the table.

Alekine-Bogo Alekine provided free beer to Bogo

Morphy-Anderson Anderson refused to move a piece (in era before clocks and a main reason clocks were introduced into match play)(It made Morphy insane)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 6/6/2006 5:59:18 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 59

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 5:55:54 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

My all time favorite exploit still comes from War in Russia. A player realized he could supply a mostly empty or small Panzer corp soley by air transport and then have the corp go romping through the Soviet rear area lines using Panzer movement (even if the corp had no tanks) to cut vital rail lines forcing the collapse of entire fronts.

The only thing even more amusing was the massive debate it sparked due to some players claiming it wasn't a real exploit and was possible in RL.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?