Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CRAP! Once again , let's try to come up with unrealistic house rules for the sole purpose of making life easy for the JFB! The only way I think you could even begin to sell that hair brain idea is to prohibit IJA from landing at IJN bases and vice versa. And lets no let ANY JFB units sail from IJN bases while we are at it! Pretty silly , eh?

Let's start with that means NO USAAF in OZ, or USN or USMC either. As all bases there were RAAF (just like in England the 8th and 9th AF's operated from RAF bases). No USAAF in China either. Or Noumeau (French). Hell the USAAF in Europe even operated from RUSSIAN bases against the Germans.

Now let's also consider that such a rule in reality would mean no lend-lease. And probably no alliance. Yeah , I could just see USA papers saying "Our boys are dying there , and were are providing massive amounts of lend lease and other aid, but we can't land on their precious soil. And we are OK with that". Yeah, right. PP's were already paid. They were called "lend-lease" and "alliance". Then they were further financed in blood.

So before we jump on the band wagon echoing "oh yeah, that's a really freakin' great house rule that we can add to the other 999 we've proposed already" lets take a moment or two to actually THINK of the repercussions.

I've never been a fan of house rules. (Like no one knows this). But I freely acknowledge the possible need for SOME. This rule completely bypasses the
'smell test" and runs right to the "projectile power puke test". It absolutely totally changes the game. Not to mention mugs and rapes reality.

Wow, relax man, this is not some kind of house rule, this is genuine roleplaying, if players are into it let them live, just say that you find that such role playing is not for you and that's it...

In Barb's example he is clearly talking from the point of view of someon who likes his game to stay slower and smaller than what it tends to become because players optimize... It is very likely that his opponent enjoys the same sort of role-playing as Japan : army support for army only, no combined action of the 2 at tactical level, etc...

The main thing is : let them live, to each his own, this game is flexible and if some guys like to play it in a different way doesn't mean that it fails the "projectile power puke test" or "rapes reality"...

Take a deep breath.

What? You think I'm going to hunt them down and hurt them? Maybe you need to spend more time on this forum. The increadibly prolific birth of more and more restrictive house rules is seldom answered. Everytime some one comes up with a new proposal , the community often responds with "unhuh", like a group of slack jawed inebriated primates who can only see how this would give them a advantage in THEIR play. If my response seems violent and extreme, then GOOD!!!!!! By doing that , I can assume I got your attention. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But I serious feel the people who need to "stop and take a break" are those who propose such ridiculous rules without seriously considering all the angles and repercussions. You are right, this something to be considered among TWO players. But with everyone posting such a rule , then nodding "Uh-huh" , you legitimize it. Now every time I try to advertise for an opponent , everyone who doesn't have four stars next to his log on name will require 472 house rules, because that's how many the latest thread has. How many threads have been started with the question "what house rules do I need?". Instead of the ,the more logical question "Do I need any and why?".
I oppose anyone who tries to legitimize the concept that to run a PBEM you need to take on as many house rules as possible , because , like a young person buying a new car "all the cool kids have them!".

My comments were and are intended to be one thing and one thing only. An old geezer smacking young pups on the head and saying "what's the matter with you? Did you even think before you posted?". Because I'm a geezer. And that's what geezers do. Now wipe your nose , and get off my front lawn ya punk kid!

Actually nothing of what I had wrote up here ever made into any House Rules I played with... Nor do I require it of my opponents... but maybe you had not really read them through ...

I usually let my opponent to know "I like to play the game closer to history" - so he can then work with, or against that information as he likes.

As for keeping the topic of this thread, I had also provided few informations (and sources) on "how things stood in those days"

All those points I wrote up, were ideas of how one can get the game closer to reality for himself - or as veji1 had pointed out: for the purpose of role-playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[deliberately rude rant]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[deliberately rude rant]

This is over the top and carried off-topic, no?

You put words in people's mouths and then insult them for something they did not say.

No one wants to impose house rules everybody *must* adopt.

And no one has suggested that units from different service branches and/or nationalities should not be allowed to share the same bases on their own or on foreign soil.


It's about the flexibility of the current aviation support system.

Yes, many aircraft mechanics may have been versatile.

But in the game any plane type can be serviced and maintained by any aviation support of any nation and any service branch - as if everybody was trained in servicing and maintaining every aircraft type and equipment.

For example, you can send B-29s to Chinese bases with Chinese aviation support and they can perform service and maintenance on the most complex aircraft of WW2 as good and fast as any US Air Force aviation support.

Well, excuse me that I have doubts that all the aircraft mechanics and ground crews were THAT versatile!


And thanks for your advice, but you are not the only one who has read history.

The Guadalcanal campaign was extraordinary and circumstances dictated the use of planes, pilots and ground crews from different service branches and nationalities on the same air bases.

There surely was a fair amount of aircraft servicing and maintenance across service branch and nationality "borders" when circumstances dictated - but that situation was not the rule.

Btw, the planes of 3rd Sqdn RNZAF moving to Guadalcanal on Nov 23rd were serviced by their own NZ ground crews which had been shipped to the island a few days before to set up camp.


So, I still claim that it was the rule rather than exeption that air units had their "proper" aviation support of the same nationality and service branch, and that the game allows unhistoric flexibility in this regard.

And it's not only about the super-versatile mechanics - the game assumes as well all spare parts for all plane types were readily available at all bases of all nations and services.


Well, of course I understand that game design choices and game engine limits dictated a simplified approach to aviation support which allows such flexibility.

And I understand that there are players who prefer this simplified and flexible approach.


But then there are others - like me - who would like a more realistic approach, be it as self-imposed house rule or as player choice option (like PDU on/off) in the game engine.

And yes, I have the right to voice my "dreams" here on the forum - although I do not expect them to come true.

And of course you have the right to disagree - but in a civilised way and not with snotty and insulting remarks.

I hereby subscribe to Amoral's assessment and push "the button".


Edit for typos

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I think you misunderstood, no one would say you don't have a right to express your opinion, that is what the forums are for, the free exchange of ideas, right? (of course there is a certain amount of irony that you are one of the posters that most try to shout down certain types of discussions, but we will leave that). What people were saying is you should not be an ***hole when you express that opinion. That doesn't seem to controversial, yes? And lets be honest, putting emoticons around a statement is the equivalent of "I don't want to sound like a jerk, but..." basically you know what you are saying is abrasive, but you do it anyway (see what I mean). A better solution is to write better, be humorous instead of using smiley faces.

Secondly, you have strong opinions about what WitP is.... but what it really is, is a video game. That is all. As such, everyone has agency to do whatever the heck they want with it. The way you play I find simplistic, but who cares what I think about it, it is your game. Do what you want. But you should also understand that you don't have a reason to care much about how others play, whether role-play, HR to the max, as coded, whatever. You identify far too much with this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Good. As former military, it always pained me to give someone an "unsat" on performance eval. I look forward to the level of humor which I am sure you are able to produce. Drive on.

But seriously, is it that hard for you? Look at the response to your post, it was basically fairly negative, yes? So you were not being funny. Actually the geezer thing hasn't ever been really funny. You have some good ideas, why not just express them in a collegial way. Maybe it is a laugh riot in person, but remember, we don't get to see the twinkle in your eye. And, I cannot stress this enough, stop caring so much about how other people play this video game. It doesn't matter. And YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, however neither are you wrong (get how that works, no right/wrong...) You are one of several thousand people that play the game, and have no great insight into how best to play. It seems to be driving you to express yourself in a way that I doubt you would be very proud of in your more thoughtful moments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm
[...]it costs far fewer points of "supply" to wreck non industry strategic targets like an airbase than it costs Japan to repair it. In reality it was about the opposite.[...]