Looking for the strongest(CLOSED)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Looking for the strongest(CLOSED)

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 >> Opponents wanted >> Looking for the strongest(CLOSED)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Looking for the strongest(CLOSED) - 5/23/2008 5:48:14 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Looking for the Big Dog (most experienced veteran player) to teach me this game.

See last post for proposal.

RHS75

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/29/2008 6:45:04 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Looking for the stongest - 5/23/2008 8:52:29 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

The experienced veteran players arent likely to give away their little tricks and trade secrets.

As for general strategy guides goes, this forum is as good as any for that. I played Q-ball 3 consecutive games and told him my general strategy and did the same thing in each of the 3 games, and he still couldnt slow me down, although he did get better at beating up a few of my ships. I believe his comment was something like: Its like watching the Green Bay Packers back in the 60's. You know that power sweep is coming, but there is nothing you can do to stop it.

But general strategy is one thing, the details on how I do them is another. I will take my secrets to the grave with me

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 2

RE: Looking for the stongest - 5/23/2008 10:54:26 AM

rominet

Posts: 523
Joined: 10/23/2007
From: Paris
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The experienced veteran players arent likely to give away their little tricks and trade secrets.

As for general strategy guides goes, this forum is as good as any for that. I played Q-ball 3 consecutive games and told him my general strategy and did the same thing in each of the 3 games, and he still couldnt slow me down, although he did get better at beating up a few of my ships. I believe his comment was something like: Its like watching the Green Bay Packers back in the 60's. You know that power sweep is coming, but there is nothing you can do to stop it.

But general strategy is one thing, the details on how I do them is another. I will take my secrets to the grave with me

I understand this point of wiew but in the same time, it is only a game.
No political, military or financial consequences

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 3

RE: Looking for the stongest - 5/23/2008 4:59:41 PM

LaM

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/16/2007
From: Wroclaw
Status: offline

But human vs human = hardcore rivalry

(in reply to rominet)

Post #: 4

RE: Looking for the stongest - 5/24/2008 1:36:10 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Not always. Some of us are professionals - not gamers. And I don't mind doing an open class - although this may be the wrong thread. What do you want to know?

(in reply to LaM)

Post #: 5

RE: Looking for the stongest - 5/24/2008 6:11:50 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I wish to play a competitive game against a good oponent so that my learning curve is steep. I expect a very difficult start. I ask for no advice. I expect to see the tools of the game used against me. I really would like to see a japanese player utilize the production to his advantage. Curious as to the effect.

Having just bought the game and played 3 turns, I figure I should start as allies. Not sure what a fair starting senario for me should be so request a fair input from the players.

I wish to play the strongst veteran player I can find that is not overcommitted. I am a 5 year UV player vs AI but only 6 months pbem experience.. I will use TOCAFF as a reference.

I may be too picky, not sure what the players think about the altered jap production.

I do appriciate all your comments.

< Message edited by bigred -- 5/24/2008 6:22:58 AM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 6

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/24/2008 6:33:11 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Ok, Yammato hunger, If you are a Class A player and I am a Class C player, what would be a good game/senario? And what will you concede to me for being a nubbie?
Assume you the Japs.

I ask the readers for their comments as to fairness.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 7

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/24/2008 11:01:28 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Well, at the moment, I have 4 games going, although 1 of those 4 hasnt even started yet

. Since last thursday, I have only received 2 total turns however, so I will consider it. 3 of the games the guys travel a fair amount, so I get a flurry of turns and then nothing for a week.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 5/24/2008 11:02:26 PM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 8

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/25/2008 12:18:26 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

OK what the hell, why not? I havent started a game as Japan in over a year. Is CHS 155 ok? No auto sub ops, PDUs on ok? I prefer 2 day turns, but will start it as 1 day.

House rules I would prefer and why:
1) No 4E bombers on naval attack (either side). 4E bombers in this game give unusually high numbers of hits. Naval search is ok. I say either side because in CHS, the Japs get 2 27 plane groups of 4E bombers (Liz).

2) No more than 1 squadron at a base on each type of search (that means 1 on naval search and 1 on ASW). If you ever tried to move a sub past Singapore with 250 Lilys on ASW search, you know why.

3) No city bombing strikes into or out of China. Other than the obvious targetting of Japan by the allies with B-29s from China (which they tried and gave up on because of logistical reasons), if the Japanese bomb all the Chinese industrial targets, China wont have enough supplies to hold a defensive line.

4) China command units stay in China (both sides) and Kwantung units stay in Manchuria unless PPs are paid to release them. Same with Canadian and West Coast units (no moving to Alaska unless PPs are paid.

5) Some limit on airdrops. 1 or 2 per game total per side is what I usually do, maybe 1 per unit per game, something like that. Your call, but want a rule on it at start. Japan can drop on every city in India from Rangoon. There has to be some limit to prevent abuses.

6) Landing on non-base hexes. Dont care if its allowed or not, but want a rule on it from the start so we both know.

7) Sub landings, as above dont care either way (both sides have enough forces to garrison their rear areas IMHO). Truth be told, I think it should be allowed to give the allies the historical ability to use UDTs to get intell on Jap held islands before a landing, but as I said, dont care, just want a rule at start.

8) ASW limit of 6 ships.

9) PT limit of 6 ships.

10) No more than 2 CV TFs in a hex. One basic problem with this game is the "uber CAP" issue. A person puts 1 CV per TF and stacks all 6 carrier TFs in 1 hex. This gives the hex the CAP from every carrier there, but limits the attacker to sinking only 1 CV. Only allowing 2 CV TFs in a hex forces the players to either field smaller carrier forces in an area or at least limit how they are deployed closer to their historical deployment. Dont care if there are 5 carriers in each of them TFs, but at least there is only 2. Optionally maybe limiting 2 CV TFs to a 6 hex area maybe even?

11) No Jap surface TFs (other than Pearl Harbor strike force) allowed south or east of Kwajalein including Wake. This means no Wake landing turn 1. [turn 1]

12) No Jap surface TFs allowed within 5 hexes of any ABDA base (including British controlled Borneo bases). Note this would limit the Japs to only landing at Kota Bahru turn 1 in Malaya because of ABDA bases on Sumatra. [turn 1]

13) No Jap surface TFs allowed within 3 hexes of any Phil Is base except those hexes within 3 hexes of a Jap base. Note: this would allow landings on Batan Is. [turn 1]

Anything else I missed?
Edit:
14) Allies can make changes to TFs at sea and any China command units (including the 3 AVG units) but can not change the missions or locations of air units on turn 1 (except Chinese). Ships in port must remain there (no new TFs or ships added to existing ones). Ground units can be ordered to dig in / improve bases, but not to move (again, except Chinese forces). [turn 1]

15) Jap units not permitted within 3 squares of off map "tunnels".

Edit 2:
16) Sometimes forget the obvious. No Jap surface TFs in or passing through the hex west of Singapore until it falls.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 5/25/2008 2:55:27 AM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 9

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/25/2008 6:16:24 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

how about this:
1. 15000ft
2.strike
3. ok
4.strike- to jap advantage
5.strike- to jap advantage-sounds fun
6.whatever you suggest
7.yes
8.yes
9.yes
10. strike- allied advantage =I need help
11.strike
12.strike
13.strike
14. strike- I dont understand anyway, but now I will study the issue
15. define tunnel
16.strike-jap advantage w/o rule, so show me the problem

or
no house rules!!!!

< Message edited by bigred -- 5/25/2008 6:19:17 AM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 10

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/25/2008 9:20:54 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Well, no house rules its kind of pointless to play really. A decent Jap player will take Midway, Palarya, Canton right off (the first day or 2). Cut the allies into 4 parts (China, India, Australia, and the west coast) and eat them up piecemeal. So no house rules you can count me out. I dont play to win, I play for fun (fun to me meaning a challenge) and no house rules isnt much of a challenge.

The game doesnt handle 4E bombers vs ships at sea very well. And because of that and the numbers of them the allies get, its a rule that I refuse to play without. This one is non-negotiable. I have seen time and time again B-17s (yes at 15,000 feet) get 25-50% hits at 8+ hex range against moving ships at sea. Unacceptable.

As for "tunnel", look at Andrew Browns extended map. The "tunnels" are the off map hexes leading to Aden and Panama City.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 11

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/25/2008 9:51:16 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

A 'decent Japanese player' would know what is gamey and what isn't. I tend to find that House Rules really serve as good guideposts for those trying to learn the game and to limit those who abuse the game.

My .02

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 12

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/25/2008 10:35:14 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I'm confused - so without house rules the Japs will run amock and the Allies don't stand a chance; but Allied 4E bombers will eat Jap ships alive? So, if you allow the 4E bombers, the Allies could win?

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 13

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/26/2008 1:39:15 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

In a somewhat more complex family of WITP - known as RHS (there are more units, a new map system, more kinds of units, and devices not found in other mods - among other things)

there is a single primary house rule

IF in YOUR view the historical leaders would NOT do that in these circumstances, don't do it.

There is a variation: if it is not physically possible you KNOW the leaders would not have ordered it, so you are forbidden to do it.

This rule concept covers a lot of things - and if used reasonably elmininates most of the big problems.

For your consideration.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 14

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/26/2008 2:26:14 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Very interesting. I played the AT vs myself last night in 7dec41 and noticed 2 carriers keep getting hammered at PH. Is this normal for all human games? How do you keep the carriers out of harms way? Does a 2day turn screw the Allies in the beginning?-

"I.m confused, so without house rules the Japs will run amock and the Allies don't stand a chance; but Allied 4E bombers will eat Jap ships alive? So, if you allow the 4E bombers, the Allies could win? "

This seems to me to be a pointed , accurate statement.

I see I need to upgrade to 1.87 and get some maps. Why did matrix sale me 1.5 when 1.87 is available?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 15

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/26/2008 2:50:46 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm confused - so without house rules the Japs will run amock and the Allies don't stand a chance; but Allied 4E bombers will eat Jap ships alive? So, if you allow the 4E bombers, the Allies could win?

From Rangoon, Jap paras can drop on every city in India. Dont really need a ship to take out India (it helps a lot). Drop one turn at a half dozen spots and do that each turn. Meanwhile you start flying in divisions to one of the bases you captured. The only real counter to that is the allies stack everything in Karachi. OK, so the Japs leave 4 or so divisions there to guard the prison camp and a few Betty groups to sink ships as they spawn, and you move on to Australia.

Now, if you did proper prep work, you have most if not all of the SE pacific (it can be taken relativly easy with 4 or 5 bdes in Dec with the KB supporting. So you can land here and there and anywhere you want in Oz and again, allies only defense is to hole up somewhere.

Once you are at this point you commit every spare troop you have to eliminating one of these giant prison camps. When you done, you do the other. The the whole Jap army and airforce over run China because again you did your prep work and there isnt a factory or resource left standing in China.

---------------

Now to end your confusion allow me to clairify: What I said is this:

quote:

I dont play to win, I play for fun (fun to me meaning a challenge) and no house rules isnt much of a challenge.

And then this:

quote:

The game doesnt handle 4E bombers vs ships at sea very well. And because of that and the numbers of them the allies get, its a rule that I refuse to play without. This one is non-negotiable. I have seen time and time again B-17s (yes at 15,000 feet) get 25-50% hits at 8+ hex range against moving ships at sea. Unacceptable.

Stand alone statements. No house rules isnt a challenge. Dont care about 4E bombers in a no house rules game.

In a game with house rules, I wont play (either side) if 4E bombers are allowed on naval strike missions. I hope thats clear enough.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 5/26/2008 2:55:20 AM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 16

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/26/2008 4:11:00 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I see this is a massive complex wargame. For the elite player an even higher level w/ extra stuff is available.

< Message edited by bigred -- 5/26/2008 4:49:17 AM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 17

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/26/2008 8:38:47 AM

kfmiller41

Posts: 1063
Joined: 3/25/2003
From: Saint Marys, Ga
Status: offline

Bigred, I am a fairly experienced player but in the stock version as the allies against a good Japanese player i am getting routed. India is almost gone and it is only May 42. We played without rules and it is not pretty. Yamoto is right if you want to have a challenge and a chance to win use the house rules

_____________________________

You have the ability to arouse various emotions in me: please select carefully.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 18

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/26/2008 6:27:26 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

It's not so much of a case of japs winning without house rules but a case of one player running amock, and then the other, with only a small period of parity inbetween. Not very fun.

(in reply to kfmiller41)

Post #: 19

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/27/2008 4:10:26 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

All interesting. Thanks

(in reply to String)

Post #: 20

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/27/2008 4:34:22 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Was looking thru the treads and found this. From 2 years ago.

Scenario 16. No sub auto ops. No sub doctrine. PDU on.
House rules:
Jap subs carry Glens only. Can conduct recon missions only (no naval search).
The Glen took a long time to set up, launch, and recover and wasnt used on a day to day basis

No Jap surface movement into the hex west of Singapore until Singapore falls.
The shore guns there were capible of shelling the Sumatra coast

Kwangtung forces can not leave Manchuria/Korea unless PPs spent to change their HQ.
game balance issue

Karachi can not be entered by the Japs unless all other bases in India have been taken
The British main base in this area was actually in East Africa, so my thought is, if the Brits are going to withdraw from the Pacific theatre, it should be because they lost all of India, not because they lost 1 base in India

Both sides ASW search aircraft min alt 1000'. Both sides naval search min alt 5000'.
unreasonable results occur with altitudes lower than these

No more than 6 ships in an ASW TF.
the game engine only allows 6 ships maximum to attack a sub, however, it will keep searching possible ships until it has gotten its 6 attacking ships. ASW forces were typically 4 to 6 ships in strength, probably for a reason

4E bombers may not conduct naval strike missions (may conduct naval search).
IMO the historical accuracy of 4E planes attacking moving ships at sea more closely matches the results gained by 4E planes on naval search than naval strike missions

4E bombers on daylight raids min alt 20,000' in 41-42, 25,000' in 43, and 30,000' in 44-45 (or maximum altitude of the aircraft).
historically daylight raids were conducted at higher and higher altitudes as the war went on. My guess is because flak was more effective in real life than it is in the game, thus this rule to compensate

OPTIONAL:
Your call, but would like a ruling one way or the other on these issues:
1) Landings at non-base hexes yes/no
2) Landings from subs yes/no/limited -- Limited meaning 1 raid per marine raider bn (there are 4) and SNLF airborne unit (there are 3)
3) Paradrops yes/no/limited -- limited meaning either A) 1 per airborne bn/rgt or B) Only allowed on Cc hexes (there are surprisingly few Cc bases in the game over 1/4th of them in Oz/NZ). Or both.
There were only 1 airdrop by each side in the war and neither had any significant affect in game terms. But just because the commanders didnt use the forces under their command to greater effect, doesnt mean the players should be so limited (IMHO). I was a paratrooper in the army and understand the tactical advantages. I would limit the drops to Cc hexes for the following reasons:
1) drops into wooded, mountain, swamp, and urban areas are generally unhealthy. 2) dropping into a full hex I think would fall into the realm of gameyness. The Tina based at Rangoon can paradrop on every base in India or China. It isnt reasonable for the allied player to have to defend all that, and there would be many more units available in the game to garrison those areas.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 12/26/2006 9:03:11 PM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 21

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/27/2008 6:41:42 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Yep, pretty much the same as what I have now. Keep in mind that was for stock, not CHS. Not that that matters a whole lot. But CHS made India a much harder nut to crack, and Oz a much easier one (at least the northern areas).

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 22

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/27/2008 5:14:29 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

16) Sometimes forget the obvious. No Jap surface TFs in or passing through the hex west of Singapore until it falls.

I have seen this a couple times. I am curious, what is the reason for this rule? Granted there isn't much to stop a Japanese TF from entering and causing problems in the IO that early, is that the reason?

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 23

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/27/2008 5:52:07 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

The Brit shore guns at Singapore could actually shell the coast of Sumatra. The Japs could not pass through this area without facing the 16" fire, but in the game they can just sail right by.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 24

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/28/2008 9:03:46 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I have now upgraded to version 1.804 and then 1.806.
I loaded AB's version 6.2 and then 6.2 extended, but I am having difficulty placing the files into proper locations. I will study the support boards for a solution. Can't make it happen w/ readme.
The more I read, the more fair/even handed the Yamato proposal appears.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 25

RE: Class A vs Class C - 5/28/2008 6:47:35 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

CHS requires the extended map. Andy has a utility that allows you to switch between the maps. Read through the stuff on his site, it is explained pretty well.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 26

One or two loaded games - 5/29/2008 11:01:01 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Is it better to have on WitP game or use 2 loaded Witp's , one w/CHS?

< Message edited by bigred -- 5/29/2008 6:56:05 PM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 27

RE: One or two loaded games - 5/29/2008 6:57:36 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

I always used just 1. Andys utilities have an option to switch between maps

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 28

RE: One or two loaded games - 5/29/2008 6:58:34 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I really like the detail of the Dutch navy in CHS.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 29

RE: 155 shipping channels - 5/30/2008 8:54:02 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Edit- Having a problem w/155. The orange shipping channels at Aden and Panama do not appear on my map. What did I do wrong.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 6/3/2008 6:08:29 AM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Opponents wanted >> Looking for the strongest(CLOSED)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>