quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander.

Nooooo.... The point of the game is for both parties to have fun. What specific mental gymnastics you go through to validate your gameplay fun factor is up to you. If it takes you pretending that you're better than the real life commander, then that's how you motivate yourself. Other people's motives(including mine own) vary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

The factory management actually isn't so hard, and honestly once you've got your stuff set up it's just a matter of doing tweaks here and there. Far less involved than the late war Allies. I think you should take the plunge and start a game as the IJ against the AI! Sink all those Allied ships, it's fun! I promise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CB and I have a similar game going.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

I set them to..... minus 60 days! No plus... If only. You could check by opening the preferences screen, I think [:'(].


This gives me an opportunity to say that I think a lot of HRs are the product of laziness, mostly on the part of the Japanese player. Like no strat bombing until '43, or only in certain areas. Don't want to get strat bombed? Do something to prevent it. The only rule I've considered is something about a max altitude (dogfights with prop engines at 35k feet? Heh.), but when you're playing with no other rules it feels silly to play with just one... Better to just work around the game engine entirely at that point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CB and I have a similar game going.....

But with HRs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

I set them to..... minus 60 days! No plus... If only. You could check by opening the preferences screen, I think [:'(].


This gives me an opportunity to say that I think a lot of HRs are the product of laziness, mostly on the part of the Japanese player. Like no strat bombing until '43, or only in certain areas. Don't want to get strat bombed? Do something to prevent it. The only rule I've considered is something about a max altitude (dogfights with prop engines at 35k feet? Heh.), but when you're playing with no other rules it feels silly to play with just one... Better to just work around the game engine entirely at that point.

I'm going for the record on maxed nested quotes. [:)]

See what fun settings can be? [:)] I hope you re-set them. But if you didn't, I assume you did. Infinite regression. Mirror-world!

Let me add here, for the record and for the peanut gallery, Lokasenna is pressing me all over the map. I may come to regret my cavalier attitude, especially on R&D. Auto-victory is certainly not off the table for him at all in mid-Feb. 1942. If he gets it we'll stop, I'll shake his virtual hand, and we'll see about another match. If he doesn't get it we'll play on and things will improve for me OOB-wise. So far there hasn't been one email whine from either of us and the game is booming along and is a lot of fun. FUN.

And no CPA-in-the-Pacific every turn as I consult my clipboard of HRs and examine each and every unit for a red card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

surely there must be ANOTHER game where the sides are evenly matched? Just don't call it "Historical". Frankly , I'd have no problem playing Japan under such conditions. But as I've said again and again, the only reason I don't play as Japan in the GC is because I didn't buy "Factory Manager in the Pacific". I'd happily accept what historically Japan had. But I don't have that option. Please don't hate me because I'm not nerdy enough. [:D] [:D][:D]

The factory management actually isn't so hard, and honestly once you've got your stuff set up it's just a matter of doing tweaks here and there. Far less involved than the late war Allies. I think you should take the plunge and start a game as the IJ against the AI! Sink all those Allied ships, it's fun! I promise.

OK. You've sold me. I'm starting a AI game. I trust you'll be available for advice? [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Oh?

Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all.

;)

Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect.

Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful.

In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has:

1) Scenario 2
2) Non-historic R&D
3) Advanced weather OFF
4) PDU ON
5) Dud torpedoes ON

In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now.

In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features.

But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

I set them to..... minus 60 days! No plus... If only. You could check by opening the preferences screen, I think [:'(].


This gives me an opportunity to say that I think a lot of HRs are the product of laziness, mostly on the part of the Japanese player. Like no strat bombing until '43, or only in certain areas. Don't want to get strat bombed? Do something to prevent it. The only rule I've considered is something about a max altitude (dogfights with prop engines at 35k feet? Heh.), but when you're playing with no other rules it feels silly to play with just one... Better to just work around the game engine entirely at that point.

I'm going for the record on maxed nested quotes. [:)]

See what fun settings can be? [:)] I hope you re-set them. But if you didn't, I assume you did. Infinite regression. Mirror-world!

Let me add here, for the record and for the peanut gallery, Lokasenna is pressing me all over the map. I may come to regret my cavalier attitude, especially on R&D. Auto-victory is certainly not off the table for him at all in mid-Feb. 1942. If he gets it we'll stop, I'll shake his virtual hand, and we'll see about another match. If he doesn't get it we'll play on and things will improve for me OOB-wise. So far there hasn't been one email whine from either of us and the game is booming along and is a lot of fun. FUN.

And no CPA-in-the-Pacific every turn as I consult my clipboard of HRs and examine each and every unit for a red card.

You mean February 1943? Because we're halfway through February 1942 already, and I don't think I can go from 1.1:1 VPs to 4:1 in just 2 weeks of game time. I'm not as optimistic about my February 1943 VP ratio, but a lot can happen in '42 I guess... We'll see! Even if I did reach supposed AV, I wouldn't see the war as over - just with a bigger cushion [;)]. Though I think I need to go look up VP values now, and see just where my total would be sitting if I can get to my perimeter goals...

I've seen more nested comments, but not on this board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

True enough, but those the bases worth building up with my meager engineer stock are hard to hold, not to mention hard to get the engineers there soon enough! I think I would have had to take a different path from the beginning in order to get AV, but there's still time and a lot of combat yet to happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

True enough, but those the bases worth building up with my meager engineer stock are hard to hold, not to mention hard to get the engineers there soon enough! I think I would have had to take a different path from the beginning in order to get AV, but there's still time and a lot of combat yet to happen.

Don't discount the probability of your opponent screwing up. It's there in every world domination plan. [:)]