Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

House rules and gameyness

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> House rules and gameyness Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 12:16:38 AM   
Disco Duck


Posts: 552
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline 		I have been looking over a lot of the topics and I have become very interested in various house rules and why. Also the topic of what is gamey and why so I decided to start a new thread.

Possible house rule
At the beginning of the war cost has to be considered. Moving all of the ships out of Pearl Harbor would be a huge expense and not likely to happen. This is doublely true since no one seemed to think an attack on PH was credible. However submarine attacks were credible. So moving patrol units to other islands to give better coverage of approach routes would be credible. This would be true from the West coast to India. Also valid would be single ship ASW patrols. Hunter Killer groups did not show up unit more resources were available.

On the gameyness side there has been a discussion of taking the best pilots out of units that have to be withdrawn. I haven't been in the military but from my experience in industry I would say this would be common and not gamey.

Looking forward to other house rules.
Post #: 1
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 12:23:16 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline 		House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players?

_____________________________


(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 2
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 1:25:24 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Got to agree with Steve...I dont believe in house rules on the whole. Isnt the point of the game for you, the player, to take command - and pay the price for impetuous deployment of forces!

I make an exception for the first turn...cant move ships out of PH or any other allied port and no Mersing Gambit (on turn one only).

I am playing no strategic bombing until 43 for either side in a PBEM. I dont think it changes the game materially unless the allies are far ahead.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 3
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 2:51:27 AM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline 		I don't think having house rules at the beginning of a game are for cry babies, but "after-the-fact" HRs may be in that catagory.  I do agree that there aren't many HRs needed for AE.

The no allied first turn move is fair in order to represent the surprise of December 7th.
Not moving restricted units across borders is another good HR to at least account for some of the "political" happenings that aren't represented in AE.
No CV hunting for Japan is also a fair rule.

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 4
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 3:24:47 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline 		My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

_____________________________


(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 5
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 8:00:59 AM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?



But these leaves no alternative route for the japanese player.

_____________________________

If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?

http://witp-ae.wikia.com/wiki/War_in_the_Pacific:_Admiral%27s_Edition_Wiki


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 6
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 1:33:48 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

But these leaves no alternative route for the Japanese player.



EXACTLY! The Japanese player receives all kinds of "bonuses" based on his pre-war planning. Starting on the 8th means he has executed those plans and earned those bonuses. If you want to start "wild and wooly" on the 7th, then let both players have free reign to do as they please to exploit hindsight.

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 7
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 9:43:19 PM   
Disco Duck


Posts: 552
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?


I don't see any reason why anyone would move the fleet on that specific day. Now having the fleet at Battle Stations until the all clear is sounded (no surprise) and flying CAP and aggresive patrols I can see.

I looked up a couple of pages on JO Richardson and found the articles interesting. I wonder the IJN would have invaded Pearl Harbor if the fleet was on the west coast. I know it was discussed inside the Japanese high command. Or for that matter if PH had been flying aggresive patrols from say about December 1st would the attack even have happened?

I have never been a fan of FDR but I have never understood what advantage he gained by a major defeat at Pearl Harbor.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 8
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 10:05:32 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?


I don't see any reason why anyone would move the fleet on that specific day. Now having the fleet at Battle Stations until the all clear is sounded (no surprise) and flying CAP and aggresive patrols I can see.

I looked up a couple of pages on JO Richardson and found the articles interesting. I wonder the IJN would have invaded Pearl Harbor if the fleet was on the west coast. I know it was discussed inside the Japanese high command. Or for that matter if PH had been flying aggresive patrols from say about December 1st would the attack even have happened?

I have never been a fan of FDR but I have never understood what advantage he gained by a major defeat at Pearl Harbor.


Call me foolish, but keeping the ships clusterd like a herd of cattle in a under defended location just cuts against the grain. If you must keep them in a vunerable position, then spread them out in penny packets. Even if I had to keep them in Hawaiian waters , you could at least use some of the other harbors. Not to mention, flying some search patterns. And keeping part of the fleet on alert. Richardson got into trouble by flying heavy PBY patrols, and always keeping no less then 1/2 the fleet at sea or dispersed. Normally that worked out to 1/4 of the fleet.

I don't think FDR would gain anything from a PH attack either. But I don't think he had enough imagination to accept the possibility of one.

_____________________________


(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 9
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/10/2010 10:18:33 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?


I don't see any reason why anyone would move the fleet on that specific day. Now having the fleet at Battle Stations until the all clear is sounded (no surprise) and flying CAP and aggresive patrols I can see.

I looked up a couple of pages on JO Richardson and found the articles interesting. I wonder the IJN would have invaded Pearl Harbor if the fleet was on the west coast. I know it was discussed inside the Japanese high command. Or for that matter if PH had been flying aggresive patrols from say about December 1st would the attack even have happened?

I have never been a fan of FDR but I have never understood what advantage he gained by a major defeat at Pearl Harbor.


Call me foolish, but keeping the ships clusterd like a herd of cattle in a under defended location just cuts against the grain. If you must keep them in a vunerable position, then spread them out in penny packets. Even if I had to keep them in Hawaiian waters , you could at least use some of the other harbors. Not to mention, flying some search patterns. And keeping part of the fleet on alert. Richardson got into trouble by flying heavy PBY patrols, and always keeping no less then 1/2 the fleet at sea or dispersed. Normally that worked out to 1/4 of the fleet.

I don't think FDR would gain anything from a PH attack either. But I don't think he had enough imagination to accept the possibility of one.

I totally disagree with Steve, my PBEM opponent. As Allies, I recommend bunching of ships at sea with no air cover, scant ASW screens and a one-eyed myopic cowardly admiral in command.

Banzai!

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 10
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 4:34:37 AM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		No one believed the ships were "at risk" in PH. Moving them "the day before" is gamey to the extreme.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 11
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 10:49:38 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

No one believed the ships were "at risk" in PH. Moving them "the day before" is gamey to the extreme.



Quite right! It would be total "hindsight". Sort of like switching the PH strike to Manila because you've run the attack several times and know the deployment and the program will allow you to sink a lot of subs. In reality, Japan's "opening moves" were a carefully balanced "crap shoot" which came out a whole lot better than even the Japanese optimists believed possible.

This is why the 8th start is preferable. It avoids the temptation of either player to exploit "hindsight" to the max. The people fighting the war didn't have any "hind" to "sight"..., why should you? OK, it's a game, so it's inevitable..., but at least we can stop the worst exploits.

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 12
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 5:00:42 PM   
offenseman


Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

This is why the 8th start is preferable. It avoids the temptation of either player to exploit "hindsight" to the max. The people fighting the war didn't have any "hind" to "sight"..., why should you? OK, it's a game, so it's inevitable..., but at least we can stop the worst exploits.



Who is it preferable to? Just one opinion here but I'd say that any setting is only preferable to those playing that particular game. What is preferable certainly varies by the individual. Personally I wouldn't want to play either side starting on 12/8. I'd rather fight my own fight; both sides can use a lot of hindsight so it is not limited to Japan. I also would not try to impose my opinion on others. There is no right way and wrong way to start a GAME.


_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 13
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 5:38:45 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

No one believed the ships were "at risk" in PH. Moving them "the day before" is gamey to the extreme.



No one except Richardson,Bellinger,Martin and a few dozen others who were "squashed" because FDR knew more than they did. Politics drove the decisions , not good clear military thinking. Military thinkers consider possibilities, politicians only consider what best suits them. The "leaders" in DC thought that the ships and forces in Hawaii were safe because they felt that the Japanese leaders , like good politicians (which they weren't) would realize what was "reasonable" and come around to their way of thinking. The military, especially the USN , knew better. But of course , they knew nothing about how to run a navy!




Pearl Harbor had been "attacked" from the air 3 times before Dec 7, 1941. Reeves,Leahy and King had all commanded forces who did it in various fleet problems in the 1930's. Obviously SOMEBODY in the USN thought it could be done. Maybe the fact that Richardson was a little to vocal in his objections to FDR's "grand scheme" , and Kimmel was VERY "Deep selected" for his job (Nimitz turned it down and took BUPERS instead) and those worthies were worried about also becoming "beached" had something to do with their silence.










< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 7/11/2010 5:43:43 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 14
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 5:42:55 PM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?


Absolutely right. Aside from the peculiarity of freezing all military forces multiple time zones away from Pearl (Force Z anyone?), is the assumption that all commercial vessels would not be active in their usual movements but would be waiting patiently at the docks for the first turn to end.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 15
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 5:54:32 PM   
derhexer


Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline 		"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

I've been thinking about this, although with a different idea. As game players we have a God-like view of the Pacific that was unrealistic given the technology of the day. I've been playing the Allied commander in a campaign game against the computer. I've been trying to limit myself to what the Allied leaders would have reasonably known and been able to carry out on December 8th.

On December 8th, would Kimmel and Short even have known of the Japanese landings in Malaya on December 8th? Would Percival in Singapore have known that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and what the extent of the damage was? Would Blaney in Australia have heard about the attacks on PH and Malaya and what would he have known?

I am trying to restrict myself to what the commanders of the time could have reasonably done given their lack of detailed intelligence and the communications tools they had.
Pearl Harbor
- Send up what fighter planes are available over PH as escorts
- Send what bombers are available north and west to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send any subs in the area north and west of PH to possible area of Japanese fleet
- Send my Catalinas up to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send some DDS out as ASW forces to look for Japanese subs
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training
- Order transports and cargo vessels to steer away from PH and to go to the nearest port

Philippines
- Send up surviving fighters as escorts over Manila and Clark Field
- Send all the subs in Manila out to patrol and attack Japanese ships along the north coast of Luzon, the Chinese coast and around some Japanese harbors (I'm assuming the sub commanders would have had pre-written orders on what to do if hostilities broke out.)
- Send surviving bombers out north of Luzon to attack the Japanese fleet
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training

Singapore and Malaysia
- Send up fighters as escorts over airfields
- Send up bombers to attack landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Send subs to investigate the landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Order surface ships at sea to the nearest port

General
- At all airfields, put fighters up as escorts
- Order all surface ships to nearest port

Comments?

(in reply to offenseman)
Post #: 16
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 5:57:24 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: derhexer

"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

I've been thinking about this, although with a different idea. As game players we have a God-like view of the Pacific that was unrealistic given the technology of the day. I've been playing the Allied commander in a campaign game against the computer. I've been trying to limit myself to what the Allied leaders would have reasonably known and been able to carry out on December 8th.

On December 8th, would Kimmel and Short even have known of the Japanese landings in Malaya on December 8th? Would Percival in Singapore have known that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and what the extent of the damage was? Would Blaney in Australia have heard about the attacks on PH and Malaya and what would he have known?

I am trying to restrict myself to what the commanders of the time could have reasonably done given their lack of detailed intelligence and the communications tools they had.
Pearl Harbor
- Send up what fighter planes are available over PH as escorts
- Send what bombers are available north and west to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send any subs in the area north and west of PH to possible area of Japanese fleet
- Send my Catalinas up to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send some DDS out as ASW forces to look for Japanese subs
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training
- Order transports and cargo vessels to steer away from PH and to go to the nearest port

Philippines
- Send up surviving fighters as escorts over Manila and Clark Field
- Send all the subs in Manila out to patrol and attack Japanese ships along the north coast of Luzon, the Chinese coast and around some Japanese harbors (I'm assuming the sub commanders would have had pre-written orders on what to do if hostilities broke out.)
- Send surviving bombers out north of Luzon to attack the Japanese fleet
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training

Singapore and Malaysia
- Send up fighters as escorts over airfields
- Send up bombers to attack landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Send subs to investigate the landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Order surface ships at sea to the nearest port

General
- At all airfields, put fighters up as escorts
- Order all surface ships to nearest port

Comments?


I for one could live with this. It's not a perfect solution (as if such a thing exhists!) but it's a very effective and elegant one! Well done!

_____________________________


(in reply to derhexer)
Post #: 17
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 7:35:02 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: derhexer
"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

Ouch .. that's harsh.
House rules are there because this is a computer game. The game engine has certain limitations, and a large degree of flexibility has been built in. As with all computer programs, it is quite stupid unless it is doing precisely what it is programmed to do, and precisely when it is programmed to do so.

Such being the case, it is very easy to cheat it. The program’s flexibility is the cause and people who can figure it out can always find a way to cheat it; something that is endemic to every computer gaming program ever written. The problem is compounded by the existence of certain battles that have been researched to the extent of identifying what some pilot had for breakfast that morning and the DEMAND that those battles have historical results: ignoring the fact that those results depended on purely human, psychological factors that a computer is not able to deal with. So tweaking for those specific, historical, and unusual results will skew the base paradigm and pull everything else out of whack.

But people DEMAND that flak kill precisely their opinion of attacking planes. People DEMAND the PH strike kill precisely their opinion of BBs. People DEMAND that artillery causes their opinion of casualties. People DEMAND that each and every engagement in the game unfolds just like the Victory at Sea DVD. Accommodating this nonsense causes the code to get even more skewed when applied to more general cases.

So House Rules aren’t bad. Intelligent players tend to understand where the holes are and obviate the cheats by making House Rules that attempt to limit things to the middle of the program’s mathematical distribution. House Rules allow players to define their own particular takes on the location of the 50 yard line and the extent of the sidelines and the location of the endzone. Flexibility is the key. Self-absorbed persons won’t understand it, but the flexibility of the game system allows a huge play space that can be narrowed and defined by suitable House Rules.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to derhexer)
Post #: 18
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 7:40:18 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

Absolutely right. Aside from the peculiarity of freezing all military forces multiple time zones away from Pearl (Force Z anyone?), is the assumption that all commercial vessels would not be active in their usual movements but would be waiting patiently at the docks for the first turn to end.

My own, admittedly eccentric and purely personal, opinion is that the war didn’t really start till the evening of Dec. 7, Washington D.C. time. Anything that happens before that (no matter how justifiable or rational) happens in a vast echoing cave filled with ganga smoke, mirrors, fever dreams and peyote visions. I guess my point is the game was devised to be a fun way to play out the Pacific war, rather than a mechanism by which one can realign the initial politico/military situation on Dec. 6. Call me naïve, but that’s why so much time was spent on a Dec. 8 scenario.

It wasn’t till the Dec. 8 sun rose over the Oahu hills and the morning air carried the stench of burning ships, planes and men, that reality hit home. It was a rather profound “Oh my God! .. I don’t believe this! .. What the hell do we do now!” kind of moment for the participants. A rather violent and intrusive wake-up-call, yeah? Although the commanders were professionals, nothing like this, nowhere, nowhen, nohow, had ever happened to American arms before. It just wasn’t in the experiential lexicon and they just weren’t prepared for the degree of shock and awe that smacked them on the brookie. Bad cess for Kimmel and Short.

Ok, enough with the transcendental owl manure. Ya'll know where I'm coming from. Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 19
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 7:59:44 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ouch .. that's harsh.

But people DEMAND that flak kill precisely their opinion of attacking planes. People DEMAND the PH strike kill precisely their opinion of BBs. People DEMAND that artillery causes their opinion of casualties. People DEMAND that each and every engagement in the game unfolds just like the Victory at Sea DVD. Accommodating this nonsense causes the code to get even more skewed when applied to more general cases.



I carp occasionally about the game code. I did just that this afternoon re late-war ASW sink rates, and CAP range spinner settings.

BUT, a big but, usually, when I stop carping and play some more and think about the Big Picture, I reflect that every single time I push the Refuel From Port button, my ships get refueled. Every time, if there is fuel and Ops Points. Year after year, TF after TF, the fuel flows in that 12-hour phase.

Except, it doesn't work that way. You know, and I know, that Seaman Schmuckatelli sometimes loses the O-ring for the fuel coupling, and his friend Seaman W.T. Door loses the cotter pins. One DD in that TF is 2-hours late getting underway, and misses an engagement. But that's OK, because the IJN CO on that other DD isn't feeling that good due to some bad fish he ate, and is 30-seconds too slow giving an order, and takes a torpedo he shouldn't.

When I reflect on how much Real Life Accidental S . . . Stuff is embedded in mass routines, Ops Points budgets, port unloading hard-codes, etc. I calm down and enjoy the ride. This isn't real life, as you say. It isn't even real history (I own the complete "Victory at Sea" DVD collection for that.)

There will never be a meeting of the minds between the "it's a game" crowd and the "show me history" crowd. So, "Play on!" I say.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 20
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 10:10:40 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: derhexer
"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

Ouch .. that's harsh.
House rules are there because this is a computer game. The game engine has certain limitations, and a large degree of flexibility has been built in. As with all computer programs, it is quite stupid unless it is doing precisely what it is programmed to do, and precisely when it is programmed to do so.

Such being the case, it is very easy to cheat it. The program’s flexibility is the cause and people who can figure it out can always find a way to cheat it; something that is endemic to every computer gaming program ever written. The problem is compounded by the existence of certain battles that have been researched to the extent of identifying what some pilot had for breakfast that morning and the DEMAND that those battles have historical results: ignoring the fact that those results depended on purely human, psychological factors that a computer is not able to deal with. So tweaking for those specific, historical, and unusual results will skew the base paradigm and pull everything else out of whack.

But people DEMAND that flak kill precisely their opinion of attacking planes. People DEMAND the PH strike kill precisely their opinion of BBs. People DEMAND that artillery causes their opinion of casualties. People DEMAND that each and every engagement in the game unfolds just like the Victory at Sea DVD. Accommodating this nonsense causes the code to get even more skewed when applied to more general cases.

So House Rules aren’t bad. Intelligent players tend to understand where the holes are and obviate the cheats by making House Rules that attempt to limit things to the middle of the program’s mathematical distribution. House Rules allow players to define their own particular takes on the location of the 50 yard line and the extent of the sidelines and the location of the endzone. Flexibility is the key. Self-absorbed persons won’t understand it, but the flexibility of the game system allows a huge play space that can be narrowed and defined by suitable House Rules.




JWE please forgive me ,but I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who designed and created this game. And faith in them. I know that you were involved in it, so you'd definitely be more knowledgeable about the game and it's flaws than I would. But my point of view is, when I buy a tool, a electronic device, or any other product , do I immediately take it apart and say "well, I don't need this, or that , and obviously the people who designed this are idiots. I know better!"?.
I don't know many people who would. (Except of course for my idiot relative who takes his new car and says "Emissions equipment? I don't need that!)

Seriously , what I'm trying to say , is unless someone who knows a heck of a lot more than me, or someone from Matrix themselves, says to us "there is a flaw in the game, use this rule to fix it", I have a real problem with people "screwing with the recipe". But I hear constant whining of how this game is broken, etc. And often house rules are used to "adjust" the game to deal with a players desires, rather than any real flaw. So , as you can tell, I'm not a big fan of house rules unless 1) there is a definite flaw in the game (hence "gamey") 2) there is an "imbalance" between players (ie-and experienced player and a "weak" player) OR there is an attempt under way for one or more of the players to test a theory (I'm currently playing a PBEM with Chickenboy who's attempting to test some of his).

If I'm harsh , then I apologize , but I honestly do feel that many house rules commonly used have more to do with the inadequacy of players than the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 21
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 11:14:42 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

This is why the 8th start is preferable. It avoids the temptation of either player to exploit "hindsight" to the max. The people fighting the war didn't have any "hind" to "sight"..., why should you? OK, it's a game, so it's inevitable..., but at least we can stop the worst exploits.



Who is it preferable to? Just one opinion here but I'd say that any setting is only preferable to those playing that particular game. What is preferable certainly varies by the individual. Personally I wouldn't want to play either side starting on 12/8. I'd rather fight my own fight; both sides can use a lot of hindsight so it is not limited to Japan. I also would not try to impose my opinion on others. There is no right way and wrong way to start a GAME.



And as I said in an earlier post, "If you want to start "wild and wooly" on the 7th, then let both players have free reign to do as they please to exploit hindsight." If you want a "game", let both sides "play" from the start. If you prefer something more like a "simulation game", then start on the 8th.

(in reply to offenseman)
Post #: 22
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/11/2010 11:22:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
If I'm harsh , then I apologize , but I honestly do feel that many house rules commonly used have more to do with the inadequacy of players than the game.

No need Steve, you're not being harsh at all. I wouldn't say it quite that way, however, but heck. I think of it as a spectrum, and try to recognize that the game cannot satisfy conflicting demands. So, I try to think of HRs as a means to allow certain groups of players to shift the center of the paradigm in a direction more conducive to their style of play. I would rather have that, than reactively drag the whole system in one direction, and then another, and then another, depending on the percieved crisis of the moment. To me, HRs are like a safety valve, and so I don't really mind them. But I can understand how they torque people off.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 23
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/12/2010 12:39:34 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		I think JWE has hit the nail on the head. Not everyone approaches this game from the same view point. Some view it solely as a challenging strategic game set in the WWII PTO/CBI. Others view it as a historical war game where the war in said theatre can be replayed to see how the results might be affected by different strategic thinking by both sides. The former group are the type that wouldn't want a lot of HR's nor understand why people would want them. The latter group would be much more likely to suggest the use of HR's to help rein in some of the games "warts" as far as ahistorical combat results.

Neither side is wrong, its just a different way to look at it. However, I dare say that two opponents in a PBEM are best suited if they match up in their approaches to the game. The two approaches I described above don't mix well. When I was a fourth year student in vet school we doing an intake on a horse for surgical referral. One of my clasmates was reviewing the medical history provided by the referring veterinarian and snorted incredulously about the care care the horse had been getting up to that point. I believe he said" I can't beleive he would do that! (he being the referring vet)". My Equine Surgery Professor snagged the chart from kid, reviewed the notes, and pronounced that he saw nothing wrong with the care the animal had been given. He then spoke a truism that I have quoted at least once a week in 20+ years of practice if not more often: "Some times different is not wrong; some times different is just different".

I think that applies to WITP/AE as much as does to the practice of verterinary medicine



_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/12/2010 4:29:27 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		JWE,

Its the best WWII game I have ever played. You rock and so does the entire team. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, 'You can please some of the poeple some of the time. You can even please a few of the people all the time. But you can't please all of the people all of the time.'

The game's success stands for itself.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 25
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/13/2010 1:56:49 AM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline 		With the original WITP I believe much like Steve did. I offered up a game of "Warts and all" in the Opponent section of this forum, thinking that there was nothing that gamey that I couldn't live with. The person that took up my offer then proceeded to "teach" me in what gamey was. 400 Bettys on a size 3 AF and still able to use torpedos an launch 100 planes/turn. Landing a squad with a sub in a non-base hex to block the retreat path of a division. He even tried to kill my CVs on the first turn because he knew precisely which hex they were in....luckily I moved them south. I lived with everything he threw at me without complaint, because I got exactly what I asked for.

My point is....much like what Vettim89 said....HRs or not, it is important that you talk to potential opponent before starting a game to understand what the other player's expectations are. This game takes too long to finish for a person to be saddled with a type of player who's viewpoint is different.

_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 26
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/13/2010 2:31:02 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline 		400 Betty's!?!?! Holy Sh--!!!!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 27
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/13/2010 2:51:02 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Charbroiled,

How was your opponent able to launch Bettys armed with a torpedo out of a level 3 airfield in classical WITP?

Alfred

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 28
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/13/2010 9:57:31 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
.HRs or not, it is important that you talk to potential opponent before starting a game to understand what the other player's expectations are. This game takes too long to finish for a person to be saddled with a type of player who's viewpoint is different.



Exactly what I've said for years now..., and well stated to boot. Bravo!

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 29
RE: House rules and gameyness - 7/13/2010 10:15:26 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

Absolutely right. Aside from the peculiarity of freezing all military forces multiple time zones away from Pearl (Force Z anyone?), is the assumption that all commercial vessels would not be active in their usual movements but would be waiting patiently at the docks for the first turn to end.

My own, admittedly eccentric and purely personal, opinion is that the war didn’t really start till the evening of Dec. 7, Washington D.C. time. Anything that happens before that (no matter how justifiable or rational) happens in a vast echoing cave filled with ganga smoke, mirrors, fever dreams and peyote visions. I guess my point is the game was devised to be a fun way to play out the Pacific war, rather than a mechanism by which one can realign the initial politico/military situation on Dec. 6. Call me naïve, but that’s why so much time was spent on a Dec. 8 scenario.

It wasn’t till the Dec. 8 sun rose over the Oahu hills and the morning air carried the stench of burning ships, planes and men, that reality hit home. It was a rather profound “Oh my God! .. I don’t believe this! .. What the hell do we do now!” kind of moment for the participants. A rather violent and intrusive wake-up-call, yeah? Although the commanders were professionals, nothing like this, nowhere, nowhen, nohow, had ever happened to American arms before. It just wasn’t in the experiential lexicon and they just weren’t prepared for the degree of shock and awe that smacked them on the brookie. Bad cess for Kimmel and Short.

Ok, enough with the transcendental owl manure. Ya'll know where I'm coming from. Ciao. J


When I play the AI with the 12/7 start, I leave the military settings alone, and don't spend political points till the 8th. But if it's Monday morning somewhere when it's Sunday morning at Pearl, the commercial ships are working if they aren't in the Philippines or Singapore. I don't know that that is terribly a-historical -- figuring that the word on Pearl is getting out when people are already at work -- or game-changing; and it breaks up some of the tedium of getting things started.

Oh, I've tried the other way too, since the AI never complains. Pearl and the USAAF in the Philippines still gets smacked plenty hard with CAP up -- if you leave surprise on.

The Chinese were already at war, so I have no problems with giving them orders on 12/7. Force Z is debatable. I leave it alone because the British air cover is better than real life, and the AI needs all the help it can get. At least the RAF is on combat stations. Brereton never gets another command when I'm in charge.

Great point about starting from the 8th. You still get the Force Z debate. And the KB can still go back for another smack at Pearl if they are of a mind to.

And I agree that house rules are a better choice than dragging the game engine in one direction or another. PBEMer's just need to be up front about their expectations from the get-go and everyone should be fine with that. I think it would be very bad manners to vacate Pearl for a trip to Christmas Island and have the AF on CAP without informing my opponent that I felt free to do so.


_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> House rules and gameyness Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.045