Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly?

Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (Full Version)

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

Message

DanSez -> Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 3:03:07 AM)
I know they can come in all varieties and in the best of situations are negotiated and followed by both sides. I just recently lost a long time PBEM opponent over a demand I thought was a bit over the top. Not naming names or calling anyone out. Just saying: Dec 08 (right out of the box), this otherwise very reliable and reasonable opponent required me to move the KB directly back to Tokyo, "as it was done historically". I didn't agree that I should do that without some form of rule or compensation in return. Because I didn't accept the opponent's interpretation of how I should behave 'historically' 2+ year relationship appears to have ended. Most of our game play has been with other games but we had been playing WitPAE short scenarios for about a year. I am very sad to loose this opponent and if he reads this at some future date, I am not posting this for a general outpouring of sympathy to me or criticism of him. For the education of us both, maybe some readers can weigh in on if the rule requested was a bit out of line or if my refusal to accept without some further negotiation was being too stiff necked. I am not going to rebut or argue with justifications on my side - what's done is done. Or to lighten the mood somewhat, have you lost a PBEM opponent over some rule or argument of method of play? What caused that break? I am seriously bummed out... [&:] But on a brighter note, I think the LONG awaited Grand Campaign game has finally gotten started with someone else. [sm=duel.gif]

Chickenboy -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 3:20:40 AM)
Don't feel too bad, DanSez. Like all relationships, some aren't destined to work out in the long run. Often you'd rather know up front which those are and take the bitter medicine early rather than investing too much of your time in something destined to failure. Seeing that a grand campaign wasn't going to work out on December 8th is a blessing. Better to end it now than discover irreconcilable differences 1-2 game years out from here. So-have a drink. Relax. Find someone else in due time. It'll work out. From a personal perspective, I have been very selective in my CG PBEM partners. One must be very picky in their partners to see these things through.

bigred -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 4:12:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Don't feel too bad, DanSez. Like all relationships, some aren't destined to work out in the long run. Often you'd rather know up front which those are and take the bitter medicine early rather than investing too much of your time in something destined to failure. Seeing that a grand campaign wasn't going to work out on December 8th is a blessing. Better to end it now than discover irreconcilable differences 1-2 game years out from here. So-have a drink. Relax. Find someone else in due time. It'll work out. From a personal perspective, I have been very selective in my CG PBEM partners. One must be very picky in their partners to see these things through. +1

dr.hal -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 11:13:59 AM)
Welcome DanSez I think you will find that this is THE game, once you sort out the right partner. As Chickenboy has indicated, one must be selective, however given that you have played this player in prior games, seems to be a rock solid way to "screen" someone. So I am surprised at the demand to return to Tokyo. I've never heard of that one before. Lots of things that CAN happen in the game are not historical, but that's the nature of the game, and makes it more interesting. Having Force Z ride to its doom every game would be no fun at all! Loosing a long term partner is indeed a bummer, I had a similar experience, but you have to put it behind you and enjoy the game at present, not the game of the past (despite this being a "game of the past"!). Just have fun. Hal

btd64 -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 12:43:04 PM)
Plus one to above. But, If he wanted that rule he should of stated it "before" you started. He was probably worried about his CV's. In "The operational art of war" game, I posted and closed and opened and closed,[:@] a thread looking for an opponent to play a scenario called "Europe Aflame" had 3, yes three takers over a NINE MONTH period of time. Asked them to read the doc that comes with the game. It included info about house rules and game options,etc. Only one survived long enough to say lets play. He disappeared shortly after that.[:@][:@][:@] Oh well, WITPAE. The only war game you will ever need. PERIOD....GP

Andav -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 12:56:02 PM)
I am very lucky to have found an excellent PBEM opponent in witpqs. Chickenboy is exactly right. Better to find out on Dec 8th then have issues a couple of months/years into the game. It is a game after all and should be a source of fun not frustration. As a Japanese player, I would not agree to that request. Every decision either side makes has a counter. If the Japanese decide to hang around the Hawaiian Islands for a second day, they risk getting hit by surface forces which survived Dec 7th. There is at least one AAR which shows how disastrous this can be for the IJN. There have been a lot of debates over if a second strike on Pearl is worth it for the IJN. Most Allied players welcome a second strike because it will further bleed the high quality IJN pilot pool early in the game for little additional risk to long term Allied war effort. I am not sure why the Allies would want to limit their early war opportunities by requiring the IJN to retire. It really is saving the IJN commander from themselves I guess. On the other hand, not hunting the US CVs on Dec 8th is a more than reasonable request since the Japanese player knows exactly where they are located and did not historically. We all have our own "sniff test" and we need to make sure our PBEM partner is aligned. Wa

dr.hal -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 1:56:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andav We all have our own "sniff test" and we need to make sure our PBEM partner is aligned. Well put Andav! I never heard it said like that, it makes my nose tingle! As for CV hunting, indeed that was the cause of an 8th December 1941 stop of one game I had going. The real challenge to any start with this game is getting over the all knowing start position by BOTH players. I think you're right, knowing the start position of the Allied CVs is a BIG advantage over the actual players. Nagumo's biggest fear was being caught by the US CVs and not having enough ammo to do much about it. But the WITPAE player has the knowledge to circumvent that fear. First, the KB does have the ammo, second the Japanese player DOES know how weak the US CVs are (especially in torpedo capability), and finally that US subs are also hamstrung by their torpedoes. So CV hunting is a viable and very lucrative option given that pre-game knowledge. Heading south and west after the attack would certainly be attractive! So I do believe that the IJN player must have some restrictions, but usually that's settled by an understanding of not exploiting the pre-game knowledge to any real degree (but both players DO exploit thing; such as the Allied player knowing the range and capability of Betty and Nell bombers, thus keeping Force Z well outside the kill zone of those aircraft; a fact Admiral Phillips didn't know about, somewhat dismissing the threat of the IJ Air Force by keeping close to the Malaysian coast). So, as was indicated by the above posts, it is wise to establish limits via house rules from the get-go, but it is even better if both players understand and agree to the theme of the game being played, one of historical realism, or one of pure gaming fun.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 3:21:46 PM)
If playing Japan I'd for sure agree to this. Come on, it's history, man. Gotta respect the past. So when the Allied player dutifully puts three CVs off Midway the first week of June 1942, one with, say, 20 points of System damage, and you know he's there because hey! you read a history book, you can then proceed to cream the USN. Right?

HansBolter -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 3:27:31 PM)
Would appear you opponent was either fearful of a the KB staying on station at Pearl or engaging in second turn CV hunting since the IJ player knows where the American carriers are at start. A simple house rule of no CV hunting on turn two addresses the latter concern. As for the former concern, staying multiple days can be just as risky for the KB as for the Americans. Seems there could have been a way to address his concerns.

Zigurat666 -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 3:37:51 PM)
I bet he put every last sub he owned on a full speed course to Tokyo :)

DanSez -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 4:47:48 PM)
It wasn't an issue of purposely hunting his carriers. That would not be kosher. But that was one of the bases of the request. Part of the reasoning was that the Japanese didn't know how powerful the KB was so they should go home and debrief. We had a number of previous discussions about historic vs game play and I guess I didn't want to see just how deep in the historic camp he was entrenched. I think in some way he could not see how to insure the survival of his carriers unless I retired the KB all the way back to Tokyo and my insurances that I was not going to purposely hunt his carrier (but that it was his responsibility to flee the area) did not sway him -- ergo the break. thanks for the replies.

obvert -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/29/2015 11:11:01 PM)
What was his take on Force Z then? [;)]

witpqs -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 12:11:08 AM)
Wow - Chrome crashed while writing me post. That's wacky. Andav is tops. But be warned that Devious Admiral Wa (DAW) is d-e-v-i-o-u-s. We've had our 1x1 PBM going for 3 years and 2 months. We are both in a slower moving 2x2 that I joined in progress 1.5 years before that. [X(] The OP about requiring KB to head directly to Tokyo on turn 2 made me choke. That's nuts! Personally, and I mean when playing Allies, I am OK with carrier hunting on December 8th, but not the 7th. That requires adult interpretation, meaning one can't use the December 7th move to position for a hunt that supposedly begins on December 8th (because then the December 7th move really was actually part of the hunt). Even though there is only 1 movement phase for the December 7th turn (except for the IJN Magic Move), if the IJ player is honest on December 7th then that is plenty for the Allied player. If I fart around and get my (Allied) carriers caught that is on me. If players want to agree to various things ahead of time, that's cool because it's between them. That's just part of exploring the permutations allowed by the game and (to some minor degree) as a simulation. Your opponent is a gaming partner. Gotta work it out ahead of time and be flexible. And the more rules there are the more you will screw up and violate them without even meaning to.

DanSez -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 3:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert What was his take on Force Z then? [;)] It never came up. I assume that as it actually happened (the strikes that sank force Z), whatever the first turn game results were ok.

DanSez -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 3:15:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs ... meaning one can't use the December 7th move to position for a hunt that supposedly begins on December 8th (because then the December 7th move really was actually part of the hunt). This was a test run of the first week of the campaign game (historic first turn - Dec 7th Surprise - usual settings) in preparation to launch one 'for real' later this year while we continued to play short scenarios till then.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 5:20:52 AM)
At one time, I joined a 2 v 2 that was already ongoing and at some point in time I did sent of my turn (via dropbox) and never ever heard of the other players again... Can't even remember if I tried to find out what was going on but that was just plain strange....

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 1:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder At one time, I joined a 2 v 2 that was already ongoing and at some point in time I did sent of my turn (via dropbox) and never ever heard of the other players again... Can't even remember if I tried to find out what was going on but that was just plain strange.... They're back on Remulak. Edit: I had to look up the spelling of Remulak. How great is Google?

Miller -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 7:20:52 PM)
I had an opponent who bailed because he was convinced the reason his Jap CD unit armed with two 5inch and six 3inch guns failed to stop a 20 ship CA/CL bombardment from doing any damage was a bug.

btd64 -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (1/30/2015 8:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 So when the Allied player dutifully puts three CVs off Midway the first week of June 1942, one with, say, 20 points of System damage, and you know he's there because hey! you read a history book, you can then proceed to cream the USN. Right? Ha. I did this same thing in my very first GC when playing the original many years ago. I thought the AI would show up. Guess what folks, The AI didn't.[:'(] After that I played around a little to se if the Historic part of the war would kick in. It didn't The next GC against the AI I knew better. Live and learn....GP

Mike McCreery -> RE: Have you lost a long term PBEM partner over something silly? (2/8/2015 2:17:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanSez I know they can come in all varieties and in the best of situations are negotiated and followed by both sides. I just recently lost a long time PBEM opponent over a demand I thought was a bit over the top. Not naming names or calling anyone out. Just saying: Dec 08 (right out of the box), this otherwise very reliable and reasonable opponent required me to move the KB directly back to Tokyo, "as it was done historically". I didn't agree that I should do that without some form of rule or compensation in return. Because I didn't accept the opponent's interpretation of how I should behave 'historically' 2+ year relationship appears to have ended. Most of our game play has been with other games but we had been playing WitPAE short scenarios for about a year. I am very sad to loose this opponent and if he reads this at some future date, I am not posting this for a general outpouring of sympathy to me or criticism of him. For the education of us both, maybe some readers can weigh in on if the rule requested was a bit out of line or if my refusal to accept without some further negotiation was being too stiff necked. I am not going to rebut or argue with justifications on my side - what's done is done. Or to lighten the mood somewhat, have you lost a PBEM opponent over some rule or argument of method of play? What caused that break? I am seriously bummed out... [&:] But on a brighter note, I think the LONG awaited Grand Campaign game has finally gotten started with someone else. [sm=duel.gif] I started a game with Dr. Hal which I bailed out on. I seriously overestimated the organization of the Japanese war machine. In addition, having an opponent ready to fight back and with multiple campaigns under his belt I got a taste of defeat even before victory. I simply wasnt prepared to have do deal with the disarray of the Japanese Army, the economy, the fact that I had pieced 3 parts of an attack plan together and it was doomed to failure, etc. It was overwhelming. So after 21 turns I dropped out. Not due to Hal in any way, he is a wonderful opponent. Maybe it doesnt have to do with you as much as other issues, real life or in game once it started. Also, you never know if down the line he may not be up for something again. In the meantime you may find another wonderful opponent to play and be better off for it. You can dwell on the past and be depressed or focus on new adventures in the future. I prefer the latter!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.691406