Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
John's Most Recent Email Message:  "SOOOOOOOOOOO close. Excellent idea Sir!  Time to re=start the Steamroller. Haven’t doing much STEAMING OR ROLLING but that is OK. Time to change this.  Home and working on the garage. We’ll be able to do 2-3 tomorrow."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
John's Most Recent Email Message:  "SOOOOOOOOOOO close. Excellent idea Sir!  Time to re=start the Steamroller. Haven’t doing much STEAMING OR ROLLING but that is OK. Time to change this.  Home and working on the garage. We’ll be able to do 2-3 tomorrow."

I'm confused. This note from a few days ago suggests a re-starting of general offensives. Now you say you received a message from John-2 days later-that he's terminating offensive operations? What's going on?

quote:

John's Morale: My opponent has basically admitted he's shutting down major offensive operations. It's only March 1942. Said opponent has stopped updating his AAR weeks ago. This is a similar pattern to what I encountered vs. PzH and Q-Ball. Do I have some kind of subconcious ability for putting my opponents to sleep? (I actually think John will be fine; I think he's concluded that Reluctant Admiral gives him the ability to fight over the long haul rather than "up front." I hope so anyway.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

That's why i don't think looking for an auto-victory is the right way to attend to this game in a Pbem match.
A match must be fun for both players and, for the allies, the real fun arrives from 1943 on. So any japanese player should, as he starts playing a pbem match, ask himself: "Am i ready to fight when things will become blue?"
And to do that, imho, the Jap player should never look for auto victory: the goal should always be to estabilish a defensive perimeter that allows you to last as long as possible. So even the offensive adventures of 1942 should be only seen as a way to fortify your defences, nothing more.

quote:

You know you're a redneck if : If you have appeared on TV more than 7 times just to explain a tornado.

quote:

There are no atheist in a free fire zone .. ... or a tornado ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

That's why i don't think looking for an auto-victory is the right way to attend to this game in a Pbem match.
A match must be fun for both players and, for the allies, the real fun arrives from 1943 on. So any japanese player should, as he starts playing a pbem match, ask himself: "Am i ready to fight when things will become blue?"
And to do that, imho, the Jap player should never look for auto victory: the goal should always be to estabilish a defensive perimeter that allows you to last as long as possible. So even the offensive adventures of 1942 should be only seen as a way to fortify your defences, nothing more.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (you young guys look it up ) I will trot out once again:

The Allied player MUST win an auto-vic. Under the game design there is no other way for him to win. The Japanese player must only survive to achieve at least a draw. The Allied player must win, not just not-lose.

From the Japanese side then there are multiple ways to proceed. He can try for an auto-vic himself after 1/1/1943. Or he can play for a draw. Or he can play to win by not losing. This presupposes, however, that the Japanese player does not adopt this somewhat bizarre notion that they "are not playing for VPs." Which I believe John has announced. If Japan is "playing for the experience" many Japanese players will quit when the "experience" of blowing things up and breaking things becomes less intense. OTOH, if they are playing to win THE GAME this transition period is immaterial. When Japan transitions to defense the game experience changes, but it is still challenging, and above all, if one is true to the game design, it is still very possible to win the game.

IMO, any Allied player seeking a PBEM partner should well understand the exact position of his opponent on the GAME, not the war. As well as the Japanese player's position on whether Japanese auto-vic is "easier" to try than a traditional Japanese game winning strategy of survival.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

That's why i don't think looking for an auto-victory is the right way to attend to this game in a Pbem match.
A match must be fun for both players and, for the allies, the real fun arrives from 1943 on. So any japanese player should, as he starts playing a pbem match, ask himself: "Am i ready to fight when things will become blue?"
And to do that, imho, the Jap player should never look for auto victory: the goal should always be to estabilish a defensive perimeter that allows you to last as long as possible. So even the offensive adventures of 1942 should be only seen as a way to fortify your defences, nothing more.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (you young guys look it up ) I will trot out once again:

The Allied player MUST win an auto-vic. Under the game design there is no other way for him to win. The Japanese player must only survive to achieve at least a draw. The Allied player must win, not just not-lose.

From the Japanese side then there are multiple ways to proceed. He can try for an auto-vic himself after 1/1/1943. Or he can play for a draw. Or he can play to win by not losing. This presupposes, however, that the Japanese player does not adopt this somewhat bizarre notion that they "are not playing for VPs." Which I believe John has announced. If Japan is "playing for the experience" many Japanese players will quit when the "experience" of blowing things up and breaking things becomes less intense. OTOH, if they are playing to win THE GAME this transition period is immaterial. When Japan transitions to defense the game experience changes, but it is still challenging, and above all, if one is true to the game design, it is still very possible to win the game.

IMO, any Allied player seeking a PBEM partner should well understand the exact position of his opponent on the GAME, not the war. As well as the Japanese player's position on whether Japanese auto-vic is "easier" to try than a traditional Japanese game winning strategy of survival.

There is one other hope .. the Allies use more than 2 A-bombs .. Automatic victory for the IJ ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents, in my discussions with John prior to launching this game, the topic of auto vic was never mentioned.  In other words, there were no expectations by either side in that regard.  I did tell Moose via PM that I did not think auto vic was a realistic possibility in this scenario for several reasons:  (1) Japan doesn't get the Scenario Two extra divisions which can make a huge difference in a conquest of India or Oz; (2) I know my opponent well.  Given his aggressiveness, I was confident I could attrit him efficiently so that a 4:1 ratio would be highly improbable.

I think Alfred's comments are right on the mark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I think Alfred's comments are right on the mark.

The RA scenario details are important in this case, but in an overall sense I think that my crusade (and Alfred's, but he can speak for himself) to urge PBEM players to play to the design are vital to the long term future of AE. I see the constant abandonment of games by Japanese players who "don't pay attention to VPs" and don't play to win the game, as perhaps leading to the demise of PBEM. Allied players get tired of playing 1942 over and over and over. Not only is it not "fun" in a sense, even if it is a challenge, but it robs both players of seeing the huge amount of gameplay which is included in the game design and purchase price during the out years.

If anything can kill the game and the forum culture over time it's going to be mid-game quitting.