"Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (Full Version)

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



Message

jb123 -> "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 12:54:36 AM)

*****

**

*****

***

***


**************************************************************************NO TLKILLERICH********



So, my opponent and I have agreed upon and stressed the importance of playing an "historical" game. Meaning, keeping things within the confines of logistical/ political considerations of the day.

He is advancing masterfully/ rapidly/ and devastatingly.... He has his opening moves well-planned. Yet, he is doing something that I think is foolish, and I want to take advantage of it. He is taking bases with very-important resources (oil) with fast moving units, but he has yet to start garrisoning them or protecting them with air cover....I think Tarakan has only a SNLF or Bn, no BF/ Avsup. I still have 10 B-17Ds in the Philippines, and I have a host of British/ Oz/ Dutch bombers in range. I want to destroy the oil at Tarakan. I think I can do this in a few days from two main bases.

So, I don't know much about historical DEI political considerations, would it be in bad form, given our gentleman's agreement, to try to wipe out the oil? This is scen 2, so he has a ton of extra resources.

If he leaves other bases similarly unprotected for a day or two, I may try to rush the PH B-17s to Java. If he takes Palembang and leaves it undefended for even two or three days, I could really hurt the oil.

We have an HR against strat bombing in China, we agreed it was OK everywhere else at anytime.

Am I being over-concerned? This isn't gamey, right? On the other hand, I don't want to hurt my new opponent's feelings during the 1st month of the war.

Do any of you have an opinion? How would you feel if your PBEM opponent did this against you?



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:00:23 AM)

I don't see a problem with it......he has over ran them.....and has not done the follow work of supporting them properly.  My opinion.[;)]



Alfred -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:00:38 AM)

There is nothing historical to prevent you from bombing those facilities after they have been captured by the enemy.

If your opponent objects just be thankful and start off a new game with someone else.

Alfred



Reg -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:37:30 AM)


Denying recently captured resources to the enemy is what I consider a historical consideration.

The only gamey thing would be if you suddenly brought in swarms of 4E bombers from everywhere and started an unrealistic strategic bombing campaign.

However, if you are only using aircraft that are already there, I think it is his lookout for not looking after his recently gotten gains adequately....




jb123 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:38:40 AM)

Thanks guys, let's see if those dutch 300kg bombs are worth anything on non-naval targets



n01487477 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:38:41 AM)

It is all about who you play. Verse me I'd have no problem as the HR only covers China. But given that you both talked "historical" ... there was little Strat bombing of the DEI esp. in the early part of the war. But then given the attempt by the Allies to blow up the Oil Ref etc in the area ... maybe this could be seen as a similar strategy.

One thing of note though - is that Strat Bombing is and has always been overpowered...



Chickenboy -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:43:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jb123
We have an HR against strat bombing in China, we agreed it was OK everywhere else at anytime.


There you go. It's apparently OK-based upon your negotiated HRs-anywhere outside of China at any time.

I'd recommend you do it if you can. Realistically, your B-17Ds are poor examples of heavy bombers-you likely won't get much 'bang for your buck'. However, it will be something that he will have to think about.



n01487477 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 1:55:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: jb123
We have an HR against strat bombing in China, we agreed it was OK everywhere else at anytime.


There you go. It's apparently OK-based upon your negotiated HRs-anywhere outside of China at any time.

I'd recommend you do it if you can. Realistically, your B-17Ds are poor examples of heavy bombers-you likely won't get much 'bang for your buck'. However, it will be something that he will have to think about.

Disagree with bang for the buck ... Chickenboy

Morning Air attack on Miri , at 64,87

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 7

No Allied losses
Refinery hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
City Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
City Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Here 3 hits = 11 Damaged Refinery. Bombing at 10K was not a good choice for my opponent... it ould have been a bit worse.

So 7 a/c cost me 11 K supplies to rebuild. That's a third of a normal Econ production for the day.

So, having moved off the OP - I'd say do it anyway and save your turn incase there is too much blow-back. As I said, I'd be fine - and a game with me can run from anything goes (ala VNemo121 to more historic Vfloydg/nyGiants59)



jmalter -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 6:39:23 AM)

where it seems to me, if you can find an opportunity to bring the hurt on your oppo, w/o violating the agreed HR, go for it!

after all, you guys at at war w/ each other - trying to find & exploit the enemy's weak points. your oppo can respond in 2 ways - either he takes action in the game to defend against your attacks, or he can moan to you via email.

IF your actions were legal under HR, you can treat any emailed complaint as an opening position in a possible trade, and negotiate from there. ain't it a bit like playing Monopoly, "I'll give you Baltic Ave & $300 for St. Charles Place."



ALF1 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/15/2012 8:51:03 AM)

Thomas is as well in my game really fast in beginning - he is well prepared for japs start - he do wery good job. Back to your question. If no HR to strategic bombing in DEI - go for it. Only problem is that you agreed on "Historic game". After few experiences in game I never agree on historical game - everybody of us have different expresion what does it mean - and it give usualy big tension in the end between opponents. I always perefer to have only clear HRs - and in our game we have - no strat bombing except on area under jap control at the start of game  - so I can not strat bomb in DEI - clear.

I would suggest make it clear what does it mean "historical " in your game with Thomas - for this strat bombing. In my point of view he is playing amazingly good but fair.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 8:01:09 AM)

I would call it a good move. It'll slow down his offensive as he'll see the need to cover his arse a bit more. And besides, it's not like you have huge aerial armadas to hit him with.

Cheers,
CC



Alfred -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 10:30:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

It is all about who you play. Verse me I'd have no problem as the HR only covers China. But given that you both talked "historical" ... there was little Strat bombing of the DEI esp. in the early part of the war. But then given the attempt by the Allies to blow up the Oil Ref etc in the area ... maybe this could be seen as a similar strategy.

One thing of note though - is that Strat Bombing is and has always been overpowered...


When the assets were available and their use elsewhere was not a higher priority, the Allies did strategically attack the SRA.

Main reason why they did not do it in Feb-April 1942 was because the main theatre strategic weapon platform, aka the Flying Fortress, had been destroyed on the opening day of the war at Clark Field. Demolition was attempted and that is also a strategic response, albeit only possible when one holds the facility prior to its capture by the enemy.

Alfred



janh -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 11:35:36 AM)

I agree with Alfred, there is (was) no "soft factor" prohibiting bombing Palembang's oil. At the early stages, I guess the Allied player anyway lacks the bombers to do so in a truly meaningful way, and your opponent will (hopefully) react quickly enough and send fighters so you can't pummel the wells for weeks with the 2EB and tactical bombers.

One general advice I would recommend anyway: Don't go overboard with house-rules or without, historic or arbitrary. Both of you want to enjoy a game that will take you at least 1-2 real life years, and a lot of spare time. It will go over best if both of you have fun, and the balance doesn't swing either way too early. Even in Scenario 2 the extra resources IJ gets will in most cases not prevent your opponents fall, though the air war may become a real challenge in mid and late war if you look through those AARs that made it that far. The Allied player will still get a lot more forces and ships at his disposal over time. So I would ask myself with "some measures" (such as wiping out Palembang's oil if you had the means to): even if it would be fair by (house-)rules, and even if it may cause your opponent huge troubles, will it add to the enjoyment for both of you? Kind of depends on whether you look for 2 years of fun, or a quick as possible surrender of your opponent, though.



Miller -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 2:14:28 PM)

Any IJN player worth his salt will land an IJN/AAF base force at the same time as his invasion troops at any base with oil and refinery, then fly in at least a sqd of fighters the same day it falls.

I have four 49 a/c sqds of my best available fighters and pilots on constant patrol over Palembang. A surprise CV raid by the Allies attacking the oil there could ruin the IJN economy at a stroke.......



pmelheck1 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 2:25:34 PM)

I also don't see any problems at all with striking oil fields. As pointed out the IJN player should have moved fighters into the hex to defend it so may make short work of the bombers, but even small damage to the oil fields is worth it. I wouldn't delay in attacking though. Everyday you wait is a day for him to repair airfield damage and move in more fighters.



Mundy -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 3:10:04 PM)

In Aug 43, Balikpapan was hit by USAAF heavies, so I would think it's perfectly fine.

Ed-



crsutton -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 3:10:28 PM)

Yes, nothing to stop you from doing it. It was unwise of him to snatch the bases without decent support. He did it because it serves him by allowing him to harvest the oil as quick as possible. It would also serve him for you to slam him for it. But should you?

Now my advice. You can nail his oil, but possibly end a long term game and friendship by doing so. It is possible that he just pulled off an unwise move without really understanding the ramifications (although he should). If it were me I think I would opt for the middle ground. Pick a base that he has seized (not Palembang-but perhaps Medan or Dijambi??) and bomb the oil there but leave the rest alone. And then gently suggest to him how dangerous it was for him to expose himself like that. You will have hurt him some and get compensation for his early oil grab while not ruining what could be a great game for both of you..

And, by doing this you will acquire "merit" for your next life.[;)]



GaryChildress -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 3:41:24 PM)

Wouldn't coordination between Dutch and American bombers bombing the same target be historically unlikely? Also you would have MacArthur reluctant to pull his bombers away from defending the PI and the Dutch would be more prone to use their bombers to defend what's left of their empire rather than using them for scorched Earth tactics. Both sides were probably thinking in the short term at the time.

So I would think it would ultimately be a "gamey" move. However, since WitP is a GAME I'm generally OK with such things. But that seems to be just me around here.



crsutton -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 7:00:55 PM)

No, I think it is a dangerous way to go for two players to agree that they are going to play a "historical" game. What is historical? Put a historical question or statement up on this board and watch how many people jump into the fray with a full spectrum of ideas and theories. You are bound to have disagreements. It is a game and you should just resolve to play within reason within the bounds of the game. Bomb away if you want. It is in no way gamey.



jb123 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 7:48:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

No, I think it is a dangerous way to go for two players to agree that they are going to play a "historical" game. What is historical? Put a historical question or statement up on this board and watch how many people jump into the fray with a full spectrum of ideas and theories. You are bound to have disagreements. It is a game and you should just resolve to play within reason within the bounds of the game. Bomb away if you want. It is in no way gamey.



I agree, the idea of an "historical" game is more fitting within the boundaries of logistical and political considerations. Big things, like unsupported invasions of Karachi, or enormous invasions of Hokkaido while ignoring the political concerns of the British, Australians, and Americans. For example, I am going to play as an Allied commander: I cannot suffer enormous casualties because American public opinion would revolt. I will not risk exposing an Army Corps to destruction, even if I could get away with it, because its destruction would be a public debacle, I would be court martialed, and the American forces would be confined to safe bases. Thomas and I discussed this "philosophy," and I made it an important part of my search for an opponent.

We want an historical feel to the game, not an unfolding of the War in the Pacific as it (more or less) actually happened. The difference is a philosophy guiding major game decisions, not a rote set of rules that have to be followed. Since I know little about DEI politics during the period, I thought I'd open it up to discussion. The posts are evidence that a hundred interpretations of "historical" could be offered. I am more interested in principles though.

In any event, this is my first PBEM, so all of my high-flying ideas of a game "feeling" historical may very well go out the window. It is an ideal though.

I agree with Gary Childress that Dutch and American bombers wouldn't coordinate--- But the Far East Air Force is destroyed, and those refugee B-17s are now attached to ABDA.... the mission is set, 27 Dutch bombers with 3 x 300 kg ea and 10 B-17s with 4 x 500lbrs ea are off tomorrow.... A minor affair in the grand scheme of things, but a heck of a lot of fun in Dec 1941 when I'm getting creamed everywhere, feeling impotent. Now if only Thomas would get back from vacation.....


I appreciate everyone's comments, I really love this forum, it's nearly always informative and civil (that is, I rarely see Godwin's Law in effect, even in heated debates, a rarity in online forums as Crsutton points out in his sig). Thanks



treespider -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 8:49:55 PM)

Guess it's too late...but you could always ask your opponent his thoughts.

Historically not all of the B-17's were destroyed at Clark Field... substantial numbers 20ish or more IIRC (at the office and can't recall the exact numbers)... were availble throughout the campaign.

Again I do not recall if the Dutch or the Americans ever employed their bombers in the first six months of the war bombing the refineries....and if they did it was perhaps a one-off mission rather than a sustained day after day campaign.... the powers that be at the time during the campaign felt the most effective use of the aircraft were attacking enemy shipping at sea and in port.



Nikademus -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 9:47:26 PM)

Project "X" (the trans-continental ferry route set up to reinforce the Pacific with heavy bombers) eventually totaled 39 x B-17's and 12 x LB-30's in addition to the survivors from the PI's. However on average servicability hovered around 50% and wear and tear were constantly erroding the planes that were operational.

There were no immediate strategic bombing attacks on captured oil facilties because the handfuls of operational 4E's were already up to their eyeballs in missions trying to stem the Japanese tide. This included airfield attacks, port attacks and even ground attacks on advancing Japanese troops/those that were still disembarking. There was even one ultra long range shuttle mission hitting the Japanese in the PI's which took them by suprise.

Why no SB? Hindsight mainly. Despite the challenges the Allies fought with the conviction and goal of trying to halt the oncoming tide. In the game the tendancy is "I can't win because historically the task was hopeless, so as soon as Player One captures an important target i'll divert some/all of my best resources (like 4E's) into bombing resources looking at 'the long game' ". In real life, the battle wasn't declared over till the fat ABDA sang so the idea of diverting the few precious 4E's from trying to bomb military targets that were still converging on Java in order to bomb friendly (but now occupied) oil targets is silly.

That said.......its not 'gamey' but if the goal is to play a "historical" style game i'd discuss it with your opponent and put the question this way...."Do you think such scorched earth tactics in the middle of an ongoing battle is historically accurate?" This is a seperate question from the Dutch (who owned the refinaries) setting fire to them as the Japanese advanced. Blowing up refinaries with dynamite doesn't divert B-17's from attacking enemy convoys or beachheads after all.

Finally....from a pure game level...a discussion is necessary with your opponent because SB in general tends to be overpowerful, unless a strong CAP can be placed over the target which depending on circumstances is easier said than done. Having a wrecked base and airfield, newly captured for example and have it be blitzed next turn by max #'s of 4E's might be seen as not cricket......but in the end its up to the players to decide what's fair and realistic.

Me....personally....i would not exploit the detail control of units by switching them instantly to SB, esp knowing how effective it is.




vettim89 -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/16/2012 11:17:50 PM)

I think Nikademus hit the nail on the head here. Diverting the few 4Es to SB was not considered because they were tasked with tactical missions. Once the DEI fell, the Allies lacked the bases to hit the Oil/Refinery Centers. They did try an extreme long range attack on Balikpapan but that did not bear much fruit. The RN hit Palembang in 1945 with Avengers and did quite a bit of damage.

As to SB being too effective, I think that might be true for HI and Factories but not Refineries and oil centers. Those facilities are pretty fragile. There are two large refineries in my home town. I think even one or two well placed 500 lb bombs would put them out of action for months.



witpqs -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/17/2012 2:43:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think Nikademus hit the nail on the head here. Diverting the few 4Es to SB was not considered because they were tasked with tactical missions. Once the DEI fell, the Allies lacked the bases to hit the Oil/Refinery Centers. They did try an extreme long range attack on Balikpapan but that did not bear much fruit. The RN hit Palembang in 1945 with Avengers and did quite a bit of damage.

As to SB being too effective, I think that might be true for HI and Factories but not Refineries and oil centers. Those facilities are pretty fragile. There are two large refineries in my home town. I think even one or two well placed 500 lb bombs would put them out of action for months.

As for the B-17s, my own PBM experience is pretty much historical. Strat bombing in the early DEI works but not so great (often not at all), and doing that means you aren't bombing something else. No need for a house rule or for any angst over doing it or not doing it.



USSAmerica -> RE: "Gamey-ness" ? NO TLKIILERICH (Thomas) please (7/17/2012 2:45:34 AM)

In my mind, if I'm going to try to invade and capture a base that contains one of the resources most important to my ability to stay in the fight, I'm damned well gonna defend it with everything I can. If I'm the Allied player, even though I know my early war 4EB replacement rate is pitiful, I'll spend them to hit a strategic target if my opponent does not adequately defend it. These bases and resources are the entire reason Japan went to war in the first place! They should be critical targets/defended bases.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5629883