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? - 6/6/2006 6:03:06 PM

mogami

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

Hi, One that drove me to distraction and resulted in my quiting online play and then the game was in Civil war general II players who used HQ/limbered arty/supply wagons to encircle enemy units.

CWGII was my favorite game until I played it online. In fact it was searching for updates on progress of CWGIII that brought me to Matrix in first place long ago.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 6/6/2006 6:05:15 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 61

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 6:05:58 PM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, One that drove me to distraction and resulted in my quiting online play and then the game was in Civil war general II players who used HQ/limbered arty/supply wagons to encircle enemy units.

A well known tactic in the actual war...

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 6/6/2006 6:11:01 PM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 62

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 6:09:51 PM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

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)

Not sure any of those except the last would be considered a "game" exploit. I suppose its possible to off your opponent as well, but that would also be considered "bad form".

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 63

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 8:49:07 PM

rtrapasso

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

Hey Mogami - you are a chess guy... are the rating systems in the computer games (such as Chessmaster) very accurate (i.e. - they can give you a rating based on your play...)?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 64

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 8:56:15 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

testers who publicly tested the intent and not the exploits.

Would you now, with the benefit of hindsight, agree that testers should test exploits as well ( even if only to find ways to limit/eliminate them) since real world players are going to find and use them?

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 65

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 8:57:35 PM

jeffs

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

>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.

Taking away candy from children can be very difficult!

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)

Post #: 66

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 10:07:04 PM

RUPD3658

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

Do my chekcers get a bonus early in the game? Can I upgrade my pawns to knights?

_____________________________

"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 rtrapasso)

Post #: 67

Games Games..exploits exploits - 6/6/2006 10:14:33 PM

Nikademus

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

only if your playing chinese checkers.

_____________________________

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 68

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 10:17:10 PM

mogami

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

� testers who publicly tested the intent and not the exploits.

Would you now, with the benefit of hindsight, agree that testers should test exploits as well ( even if only to find ways to limit/eliminate them) since real world players are going to find and use them?

Hi, why? They were known, noted and advertised. There has been nothing learned that we didn't already know and warn against. Read the forum from 2003-2004 everything being posted today about exploits was posted back then as well.

There is no way to eliminate the exploits and many players seem to actually enjoy them.

The question asked in this thread was "is it gamey to bomb Chinese resource?" the answer is "yes" in fact Japan should not ever use the city attack menu. The Allied player should only use it with 4E bombers.

If you want to target enemy supply bomb the port or airfield.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 6/6/2006 10:20:48 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 69

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 11:11:56 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Hi, why? They were known, noted and advertised.

Only to people who had the ability to come onto this forum, understand the English on it and read hundreds of posts/ask thousands of questions.

At present that would represent only the minority of gamers who purchased WiTP and, as such, is a rather insufficient solution to the problems of those gamers who either:

a) couldn't access or understand the forums or

b) even while being able to access and understand don't have the dozens of hours required to learn this "backstory".

I can assure you nothing in my manual or advertisements I saw or the CD box cover mentioned anything about "if you don't play it the way we envisioned you playing it ( including strategy and all manner of self-imposed operational and tactical limits... none of which are laid out anywhere but in widely disparate posts on a forum you may not be able to access) then the game may not work as advertised."

quote:

There is no way to eliminate the exploits

Sorry but that is simply not so. Codebase changes can eliminate the exploits. If code changes can introduce new ones then they can also eliminate previously extant exploits. The key to eliminating exploits of a game system has ALWAYS been to refine and correct the game system.

It was this way when we have board wargames, it has been this way with computer wargames and will be that way with whatever supplants computers in the next 50 years. So long as wargames are comprised of rules which computers must slavishly follow there will be loopholes and unanticipated gambits. The solution is not to accept them as inevitable but to refine the rules so that they more closely resemble reality.

My basic viewpoint is that if the gambit was impossible in real life then the closer the rules get to modelling that reality the less success the gambit will encounter. Rule changes will, organically, close off the loophole through�eradicating the inconsistency which the loophole exposed.[/]

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 6/6/2006 11:13:46 PM >

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 70

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/6/2006 11:42:16 PM

Halsey

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

Nicely put Nemo.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 71

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 2:26:32 AM

mogami

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

Hi, why? They were known, noted and advertised.

Only to people who had the ability to come onto this forum, understand the English on it and read hundreds of posts/ask thousands of questions.

At present that would represent only the minority of gamers who purchased WiTP and, as such, is a rather insufficient solution to the problems of those gamers who either:

a) couldn't access or understand the forums or

b) even while being able to access and understand don't have the dozens of hours required to learn this "backstory".

I can assure you nothing in my manual or advertisements I saw or the CD box cover mentioned anything about "if you don't play it the way we envisioned you playing it ( including strategy and all manner of self-imposed operational and tactical limits... none of which are laid out anywhere but in widely disparate posts on a forum you may not be able to access) then the game may not work as advertised."

quote:

There is no way to eliminate the exploits

Sorry but that is simply not so. Codebase changes can eliminate the exploits. If code changes can introduce new ones then they can also eliminate previously extant exploits. The key to eliminating exploits of a game system has ALWAYS been to refine and correct the game system.

It was this way when we have board wargames, it has been this way with computer wargames and will be that way with whatever supplants computers in the next 50 years. So long as wargames are comprised of rules which computers must slavishly follow there will be loopholes and unanticipated gambits. The solution is not to accept them as inevitable but to refine the rules so that they more closely resemble reality.

My basic viewpoint is that if the gambit was impossible in real life then the closer the rules get to modelling that reality the less success the gambit will encounter. Rule changes will, organically, close off the loophole through�eradicating the inconsistency which the loophole exposed.[/]

Hi, eliminate map edge exploits by code. These exist in most every war game only novice players are unaware of them and no advertisements or chapters in manuals will do away with them.

A player who calculates that putting 1000 ac on a level 4 airfield will still result in more ac flying does not do this because he unaware it is an exploit.

A player who moves units between commands without paying PP is aware what he is doing
A player that loads LCU onto many AK for assault knows AK are cargo not assault ships
A player who uses the turn 1 teleport move knows what he is doing

The entire thrust of many players Operations reveal they know what they are doing.

Any player who does not have access to the forums is also not posting complaints not abusing another poor sod in PBEM and not using updated versions.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 6/7/2006 2:51:53 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 72

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 4:04:34 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Mogami,

Map edge exploits... Can this be governed by code changes? Perhaps... If someone calculated how long it would take to take a VERY southerly route to Australia from San Francisco and there was a code-based way to designate one hex on the American coast as being the entryway to such a route it might be possible to simply allow the Allied player to send ships to this hex and then have them disappear off-map for the requisite number of days ( to simulate their hugging the ice edge) before re-appearing in a 7 hex wide area ( central hex and 6 surrounding ones) south of Australia... Why 7 pre-designated hexes? Simply so that Japanese players couldn't post I-boats on a given hex and KNOW that they'd ambush everything arriving to Australia. Add a bit more code to tie this in to who controls which ports ( e.g. If the Japanese control New Zealand then the convoys route away from the eastern Australian bases and towards Perth and other more westerly bases. It wouldn't be an absolutely perfect solution but it would be better than what is currently present and could use much of the already existing codebase ( I presume some modification of delays transferring units from the CONUSA to India etc could be recycled for use with the convoy TFs). It would be a fair bit of programming but it could have been done while the game was in development if someone had pointed out that taking New Zealand was an obvious move for a Jap player intent on strangling New Zealand.

2. Airplanes on an airfield... I don't regard this as an exploit. If one puts 1,000 planes on a level 4 airfield one gets more than 200 to fly but does so at immense risk to one's planes ( an enemy airfield attack could catch 600 or 700 planes on the ground and wipe out a significant portion of your air force in one go). So the game, IMO, already penalises such actions. Of course we could certainly discuss whether such penalties are sufficient and I think a good argument can be made that the penalties are insufficient ( said argument being tied to the tying of AV support points to number of engines and not number of planes).

3. Well PP are an imperfect solution to a problem in any case. With that said, yes, players who move units from one region to another without paying PP are, undoubtedly, aware of what they are doing. Whether this is an "exploit" or just doing something the game designers didn't intend which COULD have happened historically is another matter entirely.

4. I wasn't even aware this gave a bonus ;). All my landings are carried out by APs and they've suffered for that. If someone explains the mechanism at work and how it differs between AP and AK I'm sure a game mechanics solution could be obtained.

5. Sure... But if we're talking about eliminating exploits then this could be eliminated also with various code-based fixes. If the designer had simply designated certain hexes as being valid for plotting 1st turn teleport moves and had taken care not to allow 1st turn teleport to areas outside of Japanese land-based coverage or within 4 hexes of strongly defended enemy bases or below a certain latitude or past a certain longtitude then we could have kept the 1st turn teleport whilst limiting it to certain hexes which the designer and testers could have decided upon based on what was realistic.... Since I always like to let gamers be gamers I would, personally, have strongly supported that option but also asked for a 2nd option to be included whereby this limit on 1st turn teleports was turned off. There's no harm in giving people choice. It broadens the market for the game.

6. Sure... That however is not to say that it would not have been possible to limit these exploits with codebase changes ( as outlined above). Sure it would have been extra work but I think it would have been worth it in terms of putting in-game parameters in-place instead of just assuming gamers would follow the mental parameters which designers and testers assumed.

7. Perhaps although I think you discount the number of patches for games which are available on computer magazine coverdiscs in Europe. Still, even if it were 100% true I still think those gamers deserve the most exploit-free game possible.

8. We were all novice players once. Does that mean we don't deserve to get a game which renders ahistorical exploits useless by means of well-thought out, comprehensive rules which through closely approximating what was possible and impossible make those ahistorical exploits inefficient ( just as they were in real life) ?

I'm not saying curing the exploits would be easy. It would require figuring out how to exploit the game and then how to prevent those exploits, coding those fixes, re-testing and figuring out any new exploits caused by the fixes etc etc etc but I think it would have been a worthwhile endeavour. I think the main point on which we differ is that you feel that leaving the curbing of exploits to copious houserules is a suitable solution whereas I feel that the need for those house rules should, ideally, be obviated by curing the exploits within the codebase. Not all can be cured and so some house rules will always be necessary but most should be curable ( or at the very least amenable to significant reduction). For example, the Australian convoy idea above is far from perfect BUT it is a significant improvement on the current ability to blockade Australia and cut it off completely by taking New Zealand.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 73

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 4:16:41 PM

Halsey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'm not saying curing the exploits would be easy. It would require figuring out how to exploit the game and then how to prevent those exploits, coding those fixes, re-testing and figuring out any new exploits caused by the fixes etc etc etc but I think it would have been a worthwhile endeavour. I think the main point on which we differ is that you feel that leaving the curbing of exploits to copious houserules is a suitable solution whereas I feel that the need for those house rules should, ideally, be obviated by curing the exploits within the codebase. Not all can be cured and so some house rules will always be necessary but most should be curable ( or at the very least amenable to significant reduction).

I'm fast becoming a Nemo fanboy.

Some of us have been requesting these kind of solutions since this game conception.
Most of the supporters have vanished, but some of us diehards are still here.

New players take the game as it is, till they run into something weird.
Then they start questioning it.
Good, we need some new blood to replace the old worn out dogs.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 74

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 9:05:14 PM

Nomad

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

woof woof

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 75

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 9:09:27 PM

rtrapasso

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

whimper, whine...

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 76

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 9:35:10 PM

dtravel

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

*too busy napping in the corner to "woof" or "whine"*

_____________________________

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 rtrapasso)

Post #: 77

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 10:01:56 PM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

The "map edge" excuse just doesn't fly and never has. All of China is on-map. Effectively Russia contains no map edges. There nothing further north but ice and if you make it to the west edge you've already demonstrated a game flaw. Likewise most of India is on map until you make it to Karachi. Getting there also demonstrates a game flaw.

The only real map edge issues in the game are naval issues involving the limitations to the south and around India.

In any event China is clearly not a map edge problem. The question of 'gameyness has to do with one question really. Is it a rational normal thing for a player to attempt to attack in China?

Of course it is. I have armies, I have planes, I should try and do something with them. Hmmmm what to do. Perhaps I should mass my divisions and attack Changsa which is the hub of the rail net. If it occurs that Changsa falls with ease then a normal player would just continue the attack. These are not gamey moves. These are just the normal attempts by normal players to use the forces provided for them.

Likewise bombing of cities can hardly be considered gamey. The Japanese have planes that can do it. The Chinese have cities that can be bombed. What could be more logical then to try it out.

No gamey would be flying your planes at some special altitude where due to some gap in the game, flak doesn't work. Or splitting and recombing air units in some sequence so that the game gives them some special and unnatural advantage.

So bomb away. And if you should conquer China or Russia or India, or Austrailia through normal logical play then its not gamey. Its evidance that some things still need to be fixed.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 78

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 10:48:22 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Nomad, rtrapasso... Sorry I don't understand your comments. As near as I can figure you are either saying the "old dogs" are just whiners or you are saying you sympathise.

I think it is the former but would like to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly. English isn't my first language and every so often some subtle asides tend to slip past me.

Halsey,
LOL!!! Now all we have to do is wait for someone to pipe up and argue that I'm actually modelled as having abilities I shouldn't have and that, really, I need to be nerfed in order to make things fairer. THEN I'll have really arrived.

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 79

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/7/2006 10:56:23 PM

Sneer

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

it is agreement between players at which set of rules they play
if they have free game and both sides have fun i don't see a problem
there may be problems if sb wants to compare his achievements to another one with diffrent set of rules but that is all
there are few hardcore players - playing historical simulations
there are few anarchy players
and there are really many semi-historical players who restrict themselves in certain areas but also want to plan their own war

all is agreement

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 80

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 12:38:45 AM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

That was their old dog imitation.

This applies to stock. I've not played any mods. I don't think it's gamey for the IJA to attack in China. How they go about may be considered gamey. The movement/stacking/supply rules allow you to strip your front, form an uberstack w/ limited or no flank protection and launch it down the Changsha railroad defeating all in front of it. Not something very plausible in rl. The only thing that slows this down is the ridiculous resolve of unsupplied Chinese defenders in open terrain (as opposed to how they fight supplied in a city). All of this applies to later Allied Burma offensive as well. The game just wasn't designed for continental warfare.

I guess if you consider the lcu movement rules as forked AND you take advantage of that (by launching a Changsha uberstack) or if you consider them reasonable and use them determines whether or not it's gamey. I think that made sense.

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 81

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 2:03:12 AM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

That was their old dog imitation.

You got it!!! We are just a coupla' ol' dogs...

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 82

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 2:09:29 AM

Halsey

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

Conquering the exploitation of the game mechanics has been a major concern for most of us historical gamers.
I'm hoping that these can be shored up to prevent further abuse.
The new group working on this has been doing a stellar job.
This WILL take the game to a more historical level.

After this is accomplished then the alternate history fanboys can use the editor to create whatever alternative world they want.
Do the alternative history fanboys realize this?
It's a pretty simple concept.
The historical base can then be modified by the editor. See? Simple.

The bottom line is to simulate the historical aspects of the Pacific War first and foremost.
Then the modders can fabricate to their hearts desire.
All sides can then enjoy whatever type of game they want to play.
Be it historical, or alternative history.

woof woof!

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 83

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 2:57:45 AM

Nomad

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

That was their old dog imitation.

You got it!!! We are just a coupla' ol' dogs...

yep, really, really ol dog here.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 84

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 7:06:57 AM

Bosun

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/22/2002
From: High Mountains
Status: offline

As an IJN player who has won auto-victories primarily by bombing Chinese supply and taking Chungking I don't think it is "gamey" It is one of the few ways for Japan to "win" the war. That's not historical, but if Japan has no chance for victory, why play?

_____________________________

A WILLING FOE AND SEA ROOM...

ANONYMOUS

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 85

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 7:22:43 AM

mogami

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bosun

As an IJN player who has won auto-victories primarily by bombing Chinese supply and taking Chungking I don't think it is "gamey" It is one of the few ways for Japan to "win" the war. That's not historical, but if Japan has no chance for victory, why play?

Hi, I play as Japan to see what Japan had to deal with.
One of the oldest gaming problems is making games for players who only care about winning the game and players who only care about history.
Japan does not have to win a auto victory to win (I don't even like the auto system or points for bases) Japan wins by not surrendering.

The real proof WITP has problems is that it makes the Japan conquers the map strategy appear viable and in fact most often successful.

Moses the map edge I refer to is the south/east where Japanese TF can blockade movement simply because there is a map edge.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 6/8/2006 7:24:04 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bosun)

Post #: 86

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 9:00:09 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

There's a lot of "gaminess" in WiTP.

Are we going to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2? Never would have happened in RL, but it happens every game.

Are we going to prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game? Again, never would have happened in RL, but it does happen ingame

Are we going to redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India?

Are we going to prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game?

Are we going to prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942?

If we aren't going to combat those kinds of "gaminess", then lets not combat Japanese-favoring gaminess.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 87

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 9:24:29 PM

Nomad

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

deleted by user

< Message edited by Nomad -- 6/8/2006 10:57:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 88

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 9:25:21 PM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

There's a lot of "gaminess" in WiTP.

Are we going to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2?� Never would have happened in RL, but it happens every game.

Are we going to prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game?� Again, never would have happened in RL, but it does happen ingame

Are we going to redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India?�

Are we going to prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game?

Are we going to prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942?

If we aren't going to combat those kinds of "gaminess", then lets not combat Japanese-favoring gaminess.

First off - in many games, your complaints are not valid. Many Allied players feel compelled to use force Z in the early parts of the war as it was used. Many Allied players do not withdraw carriers to West Coast. Etc.

But, OK - if we are going to UNGAME the game:

- Reduce IJN shipping by 50% (to remove AKs APs that didn't exist put in for the AI).
- Put in requirements for supporting the Japanese Home Islands for civilian economy.
- Put in requirements for garissoning everything (by either side)
- Put in 1 year delay to switch over Japanese assembly lines as it historically happened.
- Remove ability for IJN to bombard more than once or twice per year to reflect actual IJN abilities (due to lack of ammo, gun tubes, doctrine, etc.)
- Remove ability to bombard areas that were actually far inland (either side).
- Double the size of the Chinese Army (actually had 240 or so division, not the 100 or so in the game, and of course remove ability of Japan to destroy all supplies by bombing.
- Put in actual SIGINT. The reason the Allied player keeps his carriers on the West Coast is because they have no idea where the KB will show up, unlike real life.
- Put radar in Allied search planes, and give them ability to actually attack at night without having a sub in the hex.
- Remove ability to train pilots up above 50 by bombing empty bases.
- Remove ability of Japan to outproduce Allies in aircraft.
- Put in all the ships that the Allies had that are not in the game (numerous!)

If this is done, i think Allied players would be more than happy to comply with the other "requests".

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 89

RE: Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil? - 6/8/2006 9:47:45 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So you are saying that the Japanese can do what they want but you want the Allies to follow the real life script?

I am saying that those people who argue that the Japanese should not destroy chinese resources and oil "because in RL that was what they were after" should be prepared to not depart so radically from RL when it suits them.

In my current PBEM game (sadly only have time for one) the PoW and Repulse abandoned Malaya on Dec. 8. Most all of the Malaya army HQs and base forces were evacuated by my opponent during a week or so of rain and thunderstorms in late Dec. 1941. I don't get mad about that, I just get even. In my case, I have pummelled every Chinese resource and oil center to stop the Chinese army in its tracks and prevent China from being turned into a B-17/B-24 base for use against Formosa, Manchuria, Korea and my own Chinese industrial and resource centers.

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 90

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?