The Do-Over (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Amoral -> The Do-Over (10/13/2010 11:32:22 PM)

The do-over. It's really what our whole hobby is based on. What would have happened if Japan had known Midway was a trap....

But in a normal PBEM there are no do overs. If you sail your carriers into a trap you are just as doomed as the real IJN.

[IMG]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/808/hermes.jpg[/IMG]

What would change if we did agree on allowing a few do overs? If after a terrible fleet battle you could say to your opponent "You know what, after this I think we can all see what is going to happen. I want a do over!"

[IMG]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/56/shokakusinkg.jpg[/IMG]

My hope is that this would lead to more carrier clashes. When a tactical defeat doesn't have to mean strategic catastrophe I think people would be more willing to try risky endeavours. And I love risky endeavours! I love when I pull them off, and I love when my opponent bamboozles me with them. But in WITP you can condemn yourself to the long road to defeat very early if you take risks.

[image]http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9140/25083699.jpg[/image]

I 'd like to try two house rules to encourage carrier battles and interesting operations:

1) That each player may request one do over during each phase of the game (Japanese expansion, Japanese entrenchment, and Allied Advance)

2) That if a carrier is supported by more than 2 others, you must provide 'sigint' to your opponent about the location of this massive task force. (A CVL could count for 2/3 a fleet carrier, and a CVE for 1/3)

But before I embark on a game with those rules, I'd like to hear what people think the result would be. Would it really make for a more 'exciting' game, like I dream of? Or would it just let us take impossible risks and get impossible results thereby?

[IMG]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9225/shokaku.jpg[/IMG]



rader -> RE: The Do-Over (10/13/2010 11:39:30 PM)

I suggested this a few months ago and people didn't seem too keen on it. I think it's a good idea (but maybe a bit too far with the sigint part). But as long as both sides agree, anything is fine.

Andrew



topeverest -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 12:20:20 AM)

Amoral,

There are no redos in my little world war.  We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles.  Understand if you want to, but I wont be signing up for that.



DeriKuk -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 12:52:59 AM)

The mulligan takes the excitement and tension out of the game. It makes for cheap banality.

Feh! [:-]



Amoral -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 1:30:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

The mulligan takes the excitement and tension out of the game. It makes for cheap banality.

Feh! [:-]


Finger wagging? Over how I choose to play with a toy? Sir, I take offense!

(No, not really)



jomni -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 1:34:56 AM)

It totally negates the all effort put by the winning side.



Torplexed -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 1:38:09 AM)

I fear the do-over mentality would begin to creep into a player's planning mentality. "Yeah...this operation is a bit risky, but if succeeds beyond all expectations I will happily reap the rewards. If it fails I pull the do-over."



Amoral -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 1:46:05 AM)

But... I mean.. you realize there -is- no effort put forth by the winning side? The little bits and bytes that make up your army don't take a morale hit if you roll back the clock.

And if you mean your own effort in coming up with a strategy, then take pleasure in knowing you outwitted your opponent and forced him to use his do-over. And then take pleasure again in the knowledge that the game will still be fun for both players. There's nothing wrong with fighting a losing battle, but a forgone conclusion in 1942 seems no fun. And I think that's why so few AARs have any carrier battles until '44.



jomni -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 1:51:10 AM)

quote:

And if you mean your own effort in coming up with a strategy, then take pleasure in knowing you outwitted your opponent and forced him to use his do-over. And then take pleasure again in the knowledge that the game will still be fun for both players. There's nothing wrong with fighting a losing battle, but a forgone conclusion in 1942 seems no fun. And I think that's why so few AARs have any carrier battles until '44.


If I were the winner, I won't take pleasure if the opponent ask's for a do-over.

In the loser's perspective...
I believe one can still bounce back after a terrible loss at sea. Not really win the game but still make it really painful for the winner. I know because this happens most of the time in my Guadalcanal PBEM and I still continue the game and harrass the enemy. I take pride that eventhough I'm losing, my oppent sees and respects my fighting spirit. It's fun to be the underdog and not quit.

Finally it makes a long game even longer to finish.

Some technical issues on your proposal.
1) Game phase: how do you determine this? By time? But the game phase is different from history depending on the Japanese player's style and progress. It can be tricky if the players delcare the phase. This means they are not allowed to implement operations that are not appropriate for the phase.
2) How far back do you wind the clock? This matters a lot or do you revert to the start of a particular "phase". If you just want a re-run of the turn without changing orders then the random seed will make sure that you lose again.



Chickenboy -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 2:02:19 AM)

Amoral,

No do-overs. Full stop. Improvise, adapt and overcome.



YankeeAirRat -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 2:05:35 AM)

A good poker player need to know when to hold them and when to fold them. Taking a risk in any game is part of the joy of gaming. Whether you think that a bunch of bicycle troops can push through to capture a city, or that an amphibious landing at a harbor that is on paper looks like a disaster beach. The one factor that you miss is taking your mulligan is the "luck factor". Just cause you launch a massive strike from your six carriers and achieve total coordination, only to find out that only one of your TB squadrons was able to find the target in the weather. Meanwhile your opponents strike package was able to launch from his two carriers and they find your carriers. In turn at the end of the turn; two of your carriers are limping home at less then 5 knots, the rest of them have suffered system damage that they aren't able to recover your aircraft and continue to conduct your operation. Due to supply issues you can't rebuild your air wings for a couple of months. You do your mulligan and this time you don't achieve any coordination, your air wings get massacred and though they sink both carriers you again don't any aircraft to continue to your operation, and as you withdraw one of your carriers takes a pair of torpedoes from a submarine.

Luck still has a way of biting your rear end. I am against doing the mulligan thing. That is unless you create a new save and game from that point. However, that gets really confusing after a while especially when your running two or three PBEM's with a number of different folks.



ADB123 -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 3:26:04 AM)

I allowed my Allied pbem opponent a do-over when it was obvious that he totally misunderstood the re-arming rules for his bombardment TFs. Essentially, he was bombarding with ships that had no ammo, so his bombardment ships got plastered by my shore guns, and then his invasion TF got wiped out by my shore guns. I had only realized myself the requirements for heavy shell re-arming a short while before, so I could well see why he was making that mistake.

Essentially, I saw no reason to demand an advantage when my opponent made a mistake out of ignorance of the details of the Game. I've certainly had a HUGE learning curve coming to AE from WitP, and there are an awful lot of things to unlearn as well as to learn in AE. So I offered a re-do to my opponent and he accepted it.

So eventually my opponent came back, did things the right way, and captured the base. I was able to test out my theories of how things work against a correctly done invasion, so it benefited me too. And in the end a very enjoyable game against a good opponent continued, and to me that is worth much more than what were in my opinion, some falsely gained victories.



stuman -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 3:30:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I allowed my Allied pbem opponent a do-over when it was obvious that he totally misunderstood the re-arming rules for his bombardment TFs. Essentially, he was bombarding with ships that had no ammo, so his bombardment ships got plastered by my shore guns, and then his invasion TF got wiped out by my shore guns. I had only realized myself the requirements for heavy shell re-arming a short while before, so I could well see why he was making that mistake.

Essentially, I saw no reason to demand an advantage when my opponent made a mistake out of ignorance of the details of the Game. I've certainly had a HUGE learning curve coming to AE from WitP, and there are an awful lot of things to unlearn as well as to learn in AE. So I offered a re-do to my opponent and he accepted it.

So eventually my opponent came back, did things the right way, and captured the base. I was able to test out my theories of how things work against a correctly done invasion, so it benefited me too. And in the end a very enjoyable game against a good opponent continued, and to me that is worth much more than what were in my opinion, some falsely gained victories.


Makes sense.



John 3rd -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 5:47:56 AM)

Amoral--WHERE did you get that last piece of artwork with the Shokaku-Class CV? It is marvelous...



Amoral -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 6:44:17 AM)

The Shokaku in 1944, as depicted by Takeshi Yuki, "Color Paintings of Japanese Warships"

I found it on this site:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/shoksink.htm



AbeSimpson -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 9:46:46 AM)

Once I´ve played a pbem match (UV) and the game ctd very often. So I had to do my turns over and over again. One day I forgot to move my carrier fleet because I did the turn the third time and thougt I had already ordered the cvtf to move back home. When I got the turn back my cvtf was wiped out. I told my opponent what had happend and asked for a do-over. He declined and I lost the game... A few day later my HD crashed and it was clear that UV crashed so often becaus my HD was defect... He still refused a do-over. I never played with him again....



terje439 -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 10:39:45 AM)

In one of my pbem games as the Allies I am in secere pain having lost all USN CVs as well as having a mere Brit CV+CVL remaining (Some guy who signed the papers with a WSC only demanded the rest back in Europe), it is now late Nov -42 and whenever I try to take an island that pesty KB (which MIGHT have lost one single CV) shows up and twarts my plans.

But a do-over? Never crossed my mind, I admired the way my opponent baited me with a CVL to draw my US CVs out in the open where the KB had a blast. It will only make the game even more challenging for me, and I am learning something by it every turn!

Terje



tocaff -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 11:55:45 AM)

The only do over I'd agree to is something known bug related. 

We live and die by the sword of our own making.  I've lost the KB in 1942 and fought on until late 1944 when my opponent declared that it was pointless to continue, short of invading Japan as I was helpless.



John Lansford -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 12:09:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Torplexed

I fear the do-over mentality would begin to creep into a player's planning mentality. "Yeah...this operation is a bit risky, but if succeeds beyond all expectations I will happily reap the rewards. If it fails I pull the do-over."


What would prevent your opponent from asking for a "do over" in your above scenario if you were successful, though? It goes both ways; if you made a mistake you get a do-over, but the same could be said for your opponent if you're too successful as well.

Even against the AI I don't use a "do over". I've had invasion TF's ravaged because I forgot to send heavy escorts with them, and there've been several times I invaded with too few men and lost the entire unit to a heavily defended garrison. In my war those poor soldiers don't get resurrected; they paid the ultimate price for my errors.



Feltan -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 2:52:17 PM)

House rules between two players allows just about anything that is mutually agreeable.

However, a do-over would not be something I would agree to.

My digital soldiers & sailors would have no respect for me! :-)

Regards,
Feltan



crsutton -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 3:09:28 PM)

Anything you agree to with your opponent is fine. I can see where two beginning players would want to do this. After all, the important thing for them is to learn.

That said, the fewer house rules you and your opponent use the better. House rules are easily misunderstood and can lead to arguments and lost friendships. Use them sparingly.



The Gnome -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 7:23:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Anything you agree to with your opponent is fine. I can see where two beginning players would want to do this. After all, the important thing for them is to learn.

That said, the fewer house rules you and your opponent use the better. House rules are easily misunderstood and can lead to arguments and lost friendships. Use them sparingly.


Agree. If you find an opponent who wants to play that type of game, then all the power to you, not sure why you're getting howls of outcry. Just know it will play out a lot different than a no-safety-net pbem game.




Cap Mandrake -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 9:23:42 PM)

Asking for a "Do-Over" with a wife or girlfiend or mistress....that's fine...as long as you don't beg.

A Do-over in a PBEM game....not so much.



Shark7 -> RE: The Do-Over (10/14/2010 10:24:30 PM)

I'm a player that is willing to allow a 'Do Over' (in fact in my still running Vanilla PBEM we did sort of a 'Do Over' due to problems with LCU movement in China).

Basically, if it was just my own stupidity, I won't ask for one.

However, if it is a bug, game engine error, or something weird happening (like my entire Shanghai Garrison moving from there to Hankow in 1 turn...it happened to me...) then those are definately grounds for a do-over.



bradfordkay -> RE: The Do-Over (10/15/2010 8:48:13 PM)

In several years of PBEM I have once asked for a "do-over". It was in a CHS PBEM where one of my invasion TFs had dropped off 2/3s of the invasion troops in the rendevous hex. I didn't notice it until the next turn when they showed up empty at the target (the rendezvous hex had a tiny portion of coastline I hadn't noticed). Chez was quite gracious in allowing us to back up a couple of day so that I could prevent that foul up.



TommyG -> RE: The Do-Over (10/15/2010 11:10:28 PM)

I have asked for and received several do overs for misuderstandings of game mechanics or for doing things that were just plain stupid. I have also given many do overs especially for the early loss of KB elements. Most are related to CV encounters. I treat them as a surrender and a new game, without the bother of replaying the previous months with the same opponent. In one WitP game the final score was 3-2, ending with a marginal allied vitory in 1946. The do over allowed the tension to continue along with the banter that accompanies a good game with a good opponent.



VSWG -> RE: The Do-Over (10/15/2010 11:25:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

However, if it is a bug, game engine error, or something weird happening (like my entire Shanghai Garrison moving from there to Hankow in 1 turn...it happened to me...) then those are definately grounds for a do-over.


+1

Other than that, do-overs are amoral. [:)]



RUDOLF -> RE: The Do-Over (10/16/2010 12:18:49 AM)

We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles! Definitely no Do-overs.



Divide et impera,
Until Valhall we fight !!



Amoral -> RE: The Do-Over (10/16/2010 4:09:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles! Definitely no Do-overs.



Divide et impera,
Until Valhall we fight !!



Is that always true though? It's easy enough to stand by your victories. But don't pbem games often end with a thrown in towel?



RUDOLF -> RE: The Do-Over (10/16/2010 12:31:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral


quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles! Definitely no Do-overs.



Divide et impera,
Until Valhall we fight !!



Is that always true though? It's easy enough to stand by your victories. But don't pbem games often end with a thrown in towel?





NO !!!

I have picked my opponents carefully, and so far only 2 games of 11 in total has ended prior to mid 1945 !!
Counting now both WITP and AE.







Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.25