Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario

Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Opponents wanted

Message

ReDDoN45 -> Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/20/2006 9:14:43 PM)
Hi everyone! Most is said in the subject. I´m able to make 1 turn per day. Scenario: EOS Me as Japanese Japanese variability +/- 15 days Allied variability: ? Japanese sub doctrine: off Allied sub doctrine: ? Allied damage control advantege: on Historical first turn: on Vary Setup: on December 7th Surprise: on One day turns If someone is interested, drop me an e-mail: Donald.Greiner@gmail.com Thank you!

mogami -> RE: Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/20/2006 9:23:51 PM)
Hi, I sent you an email.

ReDDoN45 -> RE: Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/21/2006 1:25:24 AM)
Still looking for an opponent

Nemo121 -> RE: Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/23/2006 8:35:21 PM)
I think that you should also put down the sort of limitations on capabilities you wish to institute. E.g. Do you think taking India is reasonable, taking Australia, destroying China and the Soviet Union, invading the west coast etc? Also how would you feel about air-mining, large PT boat flotillas? Apart from Aden which is inviolable in RHS is there anywhere else you consider inviolable? What is your position on mid-game renegotiation of rules? Not trying to put a scare on you, just these are some issues which, in my experience, unfortunately arise when you start playing. In my experience the key to a good PBEM is finding someone who views things the same way you do and just being compatible on the issues you highlighted in your post is insufficient to guarantee that compatibility IMO.

ReDDoN45 -> RE: Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/24/2006 12:30:41 AM)
I´d consider myself a hard-core wargamer, since I´m playing such games since the age of 11... now I´m 23. I´m allways a realism fan. In my (PBEM) games, I don´t even use the best commanders, I use the commanders historically assigned to the units, until his performance and not his displayed numbers in the game give me evidence to fire him. This is only an example of how realism-loving I am. So you won´t see me making strange stuff, with PT-Fleets or Super Submarine invasions. In my opinion my enemy may do that, if he likes it, since it helps me. One just has to know how to counter such foolish decisions... i.e. 15 subs in one fleet meens loosing the single most important advantege of a sub: stealth. Besides loosing its independency. He soon has a hord of ASW stalking that Wolfpack I am not a great fan of house rules in complex games. My opponent should be able to what he likes. If he opts to leave Polynesia or the south sea free of units and concentrate all for some strange attacks without having the strategic initiative... he can but he might regret it. If he stations 100.000 men on an Atoll (sure that´s damn unrealistic!) or Palembang, let him. He will notice what the importance of line of communications or Supply is. I´m a fan of Guderian... Most of the times its good to use units in a way that is somewhat historical, as this is often the way which counters best all possible options of the enemy to counter other usage of such units (something like a Nash-equilibrium). If he builds 15DD ASW groups, let him. I´ll start micromanaging my subs and he hunts empty sea most of the times. On every action there is a good reaction and modern wargames give players so much strategic and operational depth to implement different actions. If he puts 6 CVs in one Task group, let him. THis means he I´m sure he has all his CVs on one spot, allowing me to hit him somewhere else, cause even the best CV can´t be on two points simultanously. Summa summarum, this is my point of view about realism in behaviour. I´m not sure, whether that answers your question, as I didn´t fully understand, what you meant. The big land offensives you mentioned are only possible (if it all) in a sequence, as simultanously it is impossible or even completely unrealistic (sea above). A success against China is reasonable (see 44/45 offensives). AN offensive against India too, if properly supported. An offensive against USSR only makes sense early in the war, as their weapon technology makes a land war against the USSR a very risky thing for the japs. An invasion of the west coast is complete nonsense in my opinion. If the USN is depleted enough to allow a japanese invasion of the West Coast, they would have come to the negotiation table and dicuss some the terms how the new borders of japan look like. Sure, if the Allied opponent wants to continue playing, he can. The only thing which leaves discussion on my part is the usage of any naval interdiction in the Aden/Panama passages. I didn´t play PBEM on Andrew Browns map yet. In my opinion it has advanteges and disadvanteges of interdicting Allied shipping in the Aden/Panama passages for the jap player, so óne can´t clearly say it´s good to forbid it. But I don´t have a problem, if we make a house rule for jap units not to enter them. Besides that: Panama and Aden are untouchables for attacks! They are more or less off map in my opinion. So - no attacks on Aden or Panama.

mogami -> RE: Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/24/2006 1:07:12 AM)
Hi, Don't be afraid of House Rules. I can't think of a single war game I've played against other humans where no house rules were used. A house rule is intended to make the game correct. It is very hard if not impossible for designers to get everything correct since once the game goes public there are people who will find ways to circumvent the designers intent. A good house rule should be clear both in why it is required and how it will fix the problem. A good way to check if a house is required and if the proposed rule will work is ask "What was the designers intent and will this bring results back into conforming with this intent" A bug is never the designers intent. Exploits are never the designers intent. So house rules that prevent bugs from occuring or from having major impacts are good and house rules that prevent the system from being exploited are good. House rules that limit the player when their conduct is conforming to designers intent are bad. Just because the game lets you do something does not mean it was intended you do it. Since the game was designed to be played against AI as well as human their are portions that were intended for AI (RD factories in Japan) It was never intended for humans to alter the status of these factories. Players who wish to control them should first modifiy the data base and reset them to size 0. So one good house rule that would produce the desired effect would be 1. Japanese player may not modifiy these factories before they begin actual production or they are reset to size 0 before turn 1. This House rule is not difficult to understand or implement. Another logical house rule for campagins that start on Dec 7 1941 concenrs the Japanese turn 1 movement. Many players make exploiting this movement a central part of their war plan. To get the desired intent simply make the house rule no TF on a mission to transport troops to enemy base may move farther then 12 hexes from base of orign nor closer then 4 hexes to enemy base that is TF destination. So any enemy base within 4 hexes of point of orgin may be invaded on turn 1 but no TF can move farther then 12 hexes or closer then 4 hexes if target not within 4 hexes at start. It is important to understand why this is required and how it brings game back into intent. Rather then being good at loading units onto transports and sending them great distances the Japan player will need to concentrate on actually putting together coordinated operations that he then must direct to conclusion. Teleporting on turn 1 is the quick and easy route but it was never intended. Allow movement of any distance between friendly bases. Allow submarines to move to their patrol areas and allow KB to make it's strike (where it goes) Part of the above is "if the Japanese enter their own turn 1 orders then the Allied player is allowed to issue orders every where on map except for target of first suprise strike (where ever it might be) " when I first began planning as Japan is noticed if I did not allow allied orders and I ran the turn while setting it up I could learn exactly where every allied TF on map would be after movement. Now I could chase them with my CV or set submarines in the exact hexes required (I used to torpedo USN CV on turn 1 quite often) So in lieu of planning I could ambush enemy before they had a chance to enter orders. And of course China is already at war so why would Allied player be prevented from giving orders there on turn 1. So House Rules are a means of getting the game to conform to intent also they can be used to define the type of game you want. some players realize the above items are exploits but still would rather use them regardless. (That is not the type of game I desire nowdays having played around 35 of them already) If you find a player who agrees to your house rules and you can agree to his the chances of you both having enjoyment during game is increased.

Nemo121 -> RE: Looking for good/experienced Allied opponent for RHS-EoS Scenario (8/24/2006 1:14:13 AM)
Mogami is absolutely correct. The only area on which I'd differ with him is that I'd give equal time to house rules existing as either: 1. A means of achieving the designer's intent, 2. A means of creating the sort of game you, as a gamer, and your opponent wish to play. Both are absolutely valid uses for house rules. The key though is to ensure you and your opponent share the same attitude toward what is and isn't possible.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.765625